| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: | 2013-11-20 16:08:33 |
| Message-ID: | 13106.1384963713@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 2013-11-20 10:48:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> constraining what can be executed as a "standalone backend". Would
>> it work to insist that psql/pg_dump launch the program named postgres
>> from the same bin directory they're in, rather than accepting a path
>> from the connection string?
> But why do we want to start the server through the connection string
> using PQconnectb() in the first place? That doesn't really seem right to
> me.
> Something like PQstartSingleUser(dsn) returning a established connection
> seems better to me.
That just pushes the problem up a level --- how are you going to tell
psql, pg_dump, or other programs that they should do that?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-11-20 16:12:21 | Re: Handling GIN incomplete splits |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-11-20 15:56:04 | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |