Re: Are we losing momentum?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: ow <oneway_111(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Are we losing momentum?
Date: 2003-04-15 23:28:27
Message-ID: 10954.1050449307@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

ow <oneway_111(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> --- Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> wrote:
>> Are you talking about queries between databases on the same
>> postmaster

> Yes

> [snip]

> If db3 goes down then app12 is not affected, app23 could be partially
> affected (e.g. user may not be able to run historic queries) and app3
> is completely unavailable.

This is nonsense. There is no scenario where one DB "goes down" and
other DBs on the same postmaster remain up. There are advantages to
having separate DBs on one postmaster (like separate copies of the
system catalogs), but there's very little reliability differential
compared to a multi-schema approach.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message ow 2003-04-15 23:56:24 Re: Are we losing momentum?
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2003-04-15 22:51:00 Re: Tech Docs and Consultants

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-04-15 23:29:48 Re: How can I get a column INT4 to be UNSIGNED ?
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2003-04-15 23:20:44 Re: Help using pgfsck

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Wei Weng 2003-04-15 23:29:35 Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-04-15 23:23:32 Re: Transaction problem?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message ow 2003-04-15 23:56:24 Re: Are we losing momentum?
Previous Message Nic Ferrier 2003-04-15 22:43:33 Re: the build