Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
Date: 2013-12-06 16:27:17
Message-ID: 11700.1386347237@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2013-12-06 11:02:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think the special-purpose command line switches you mention can be
>> passed through PGOPTIONS, rather than inventing a new parameter -- do you
>> have an objection to that?

> I am not sure if they currently will get recognized early enough and
> whether permission checking will interferes, but if so, that's probably
> fixable.

Shouldn't be a problem --- the single-user mode will just concatenate
the options parameter onto the command line it builds.

> There's the question what we're going to end up doing with the current
> single user mode? There's some somewhat ugly code around for it...

Nothing, in the short term. In a release or two we can get rid of it,
probably, but I'd hesitate to provide no overlap at all of these
usage modes.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2013-12-06 16:39:23 Re: Dynamic Shared Memory stuff
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-12-06 16:18:48 Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol