Re: -Wformat-zero-length
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-08-14T22:53:49Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:56:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> The implementation I'm visualizing is that a would-be client (think psql >> or pg_dump, though the code would actually be in libpq) forks off a >> process that becomes a standalone backend, and then they communicate >> over a pair of pipes that were created before forking. This is >> implementable on any platform that supports Postgres, because initdb >> already relies on equivalent capabilities. > I think the big question is whether we need to modify every binary that > pg_upgrade executes to underestand this pipe communication method. I think we can fix it once in libpq and we're done. It'd be driven by some new connection-string option, and the clients as such would never need to know that they're not talking to a regular postmaster. regards, tom lane