On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-12-11 18:12:55 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: >> On 10 December 2015 at 03:19, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> >> > wrote: >> > > * A way to securely make a libpq connection from a bgworker without >> > messing >> > > with passwords etc. Generate one-time cookies, sometihng like that. >> > >> > Why would you have the bgworker connect to the database via TCP >> > instead of just doing whatever it wants to do directly? > >> pg_dump and pg_restore, mainly, for copying the initial database state. > > Well, you don't want to necessarily directly connect from the bgworker, > but from processes started from a bgworker. I guess that's where a good > bit of the Robert's confusion originated.
That's part of it, yeah. I'm a little scared of this design. I mean, I understand now why Craig wants to do this (thanks for explaining, Craig!), but it seems like it's going to have a lot of the same reliability problems that pg_upgrade does. I'm not saying there's a better way to get the functionality, but it's pretty obvious that depending on tools other than the server itself, and in particular pg_dump, vastly increases the failure surface area. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
