On Thursday, April 05, 2012 03:46:54 PM Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Yeah. IMO the right long-term fix is to be able to run pg_dump and psql > >> talking to a standalone backend, but nobody's gotten round to making > >> that possible. > > > > Are you thinking about something like postgres --single > > --port=PORT_NUMBER_OR_SOCKET_DIRECTORY? > > No, opening up a port is exactly what we *don't* want it to do. > Otherwise you're right back to worrying about how to make sure that > unwanted connections don't get in. Notions like private socket > directories don't solve this because we don't have that option > available on Windows. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to pass a named pipe under windows and use a AF_UNIX socket everwhere else. Both should be pretty easily usable with the existing code. PG already seems to use named pipes under windows, so...
Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
