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
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 |