Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 22678.1346698296@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: