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