| From: | Brett McCormick <brett(at)work(dot)chicken(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] keeping track of connections |
| Date: | 1998-06-03 23:50:28 |
| Message-ID: | 13685.57668.513797.152830@web0.speakeasy.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
that's a really cool idea. I think I'll try that.
On Wed, 3 June 1998, at 18:46:02, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> postmaster starts up to listen for connections, and then starts up its own
> backend to handle database queries? So, on a quiet system, you would have
> two processes running, one postmaster, and one postgres...
>
> basically, the idea is that postmaster can't talk to a table, only
> postgres can...so, setup postmaster the same way that any other interface
> is setup...connect to a backend and pass its transactions through that
> way...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brett McCormick | 1998-06-03 23:53:25 | Re: [HACKERS] keeping track of connections |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-06-03 22:16:52 | Re: [HACKERS] keeping track of connections |