From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, "hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi" <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
Date: | 2012-11-13 17:38:33 |
Message-ID: | 21425.1352828313@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> The most popular relational database in the world is Microsoft Access,
> not MySQL. Access appears desirable because it allows a single user to
> create and use a database (which is very good). But all business
> databases have a requirement for at least one of: high availability,
> multi-user access or downstream processing in other parts of the
> business.
That's a mighty sweeping claim, which you haven't offered adequate
evidence for. The fact of the matter is that there is *lots* of demand
for simple single-user databases, and what I'm proposing is at least a
first step towards getting there.
The main disadvantage of approaching this via the existing single-user
mode is that you won't have any autovacuum, bgwriter, etc, support.
But the flip side is that that lack of infrastructure is a positive
advantage for certain admittedly narrow use-cases, such as disaster
recovery and pg_upgrade. So while I agree that this isn't the only
form of single-user mode that we'd like to support, I think it is *a*
form we'd like to support, and I don't see why you appear to be against
having it at all.
A more reasonable objection would be that we need to make sure that this
isn't foreclosing the option of having a multi-process environment with
a single user connection. I don't see that it is, but it might be wise
to sketch exactly how that case would work before accepting this.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2012-11-13 18:13:08 | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-11-13 17:35:03 | Re: [HACKERS] BUG #7656: PL/Perl SPI_freetuptable() segfault |