Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Multiple logical databases

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Multiple logical databases
Date: 2006-02-02 22:13:24
Message-ID: 200602021413.24224.josh@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Mark,

> Even though they run on the same machine, run the same version of the
> software, and are used by the same applications, they have NO
> interoperability. For now, lets just accept that they need to be on
> separate physical clusters because some need to be able to started and
> stopped while others need to remain running, there are other reasons,
> but one reason will suffice for the discussion.

Well, to answer your original question, I personally would not see your 
general idea as useful at all.  I admin 9 or 10 PostgreSQL servers 
currently and have never run across a need, or even a desire, to do what 
you are doing.

In fact, if there's any general demand, it's to go the opposite way: 
patches to lock down the system tables and prevent switching databases to 
support ISPs and other shared-hosting situations.

For an immediate solution to what you are encountering, have you looked at 
pgPool?

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Mark KirkwoodDate: 2006-02-02 23:12:25
Subject: Re: Multiple logical databases
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2006-02-02 20:20:20
Subject: Re: Backslashes in string literals

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Mark KirkwoodDate: 2006-02-02 23:12:25
Subject: Re: Multiple logical databases
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-02-02 21:45:06
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #2171: Differences compiling plpgsql in

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group