Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1KoeaT0Su_dBTe6-bnhwrHoAfZXJdR50GsCgxH+g_Bk_w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>>> The argument elsewhere in this thread was that the reason for putting
>>> this in the connection options was so that you do *not* have to patch up
>>> every client to be able to use this functionality.  If you have to add
>>> separate options everywhere, then you might as well just have a separate
>>> libpq function to initiate the session.
>>
>> Right, Andres was saying that we had to do both (special switches that
>> lead to calling a special connection function).
>
>    Doesn't the new option 'standalone_datadir' (which is already in
> patch) a good candidate for special switch?
>    How does having one more new switch helps better?

Here what I have in mind is that:
a. In pg_dump or other internal utilities where we want to use this
feature, they should call PQenableStart()  or some other API before   calling PQConnect() which will indicate that it
wantsto operate
 
as a standalone mode.
b. In psql, if user specifies this special switch (
'standalone_datadir'), then internally we will call PQenableStart()
and use postgres from same   directory.
So standalone_backend option will not be exposed through psql, but
other internal tools can use it.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: b21de4e7b32f868a23bdc5507898d36cbe146164 seems to be two bricks shy of a load
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: b21de4e7b32f868a23bdc5507898d36cbe146164 seems to be two bricks shy of a load