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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
Date: 2012-09-03 18:51:36
Message-ID: 22678.1346698296@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Hmm, after looking at src/port/kill.c it doesn't seem like there's much
>> of a problem with doing that. I had had the idea that our kill
>> emulation only worked within the backend environment, but of course
>> pg_ctl wouldn't work if that were so. So this is easier than I thought.

> Yeah, kill works fine from non-backend as long as the *receiver* has
> our backend environment.

I have another question after thinking about that for awhile: is there
any security concern there? On Unix-oid systems, we expect the kernel
to restrict who can do a kill() on a postgres process. If there's any
similar restriction on who can send to that named pipe in the Windows
version, it's not obvious from the code. Do we have/need any
restriction there?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2012-09-03 18:55:52 Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2012-09-03 18:30:18 pg_upgrade del/rmdir path fix