Re: embedded/"serverless" (Re: serverless postgresql)

"Chris Travers" <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com> writes:
> I agree with the approach of a wrapper library which would wrap the
> startup/shutdown of a postgresql server so that the programmer doesn't have
> to worry about the details,

The reason that the client programmer doesn't have to worry about
starting/stopping the database is that it's not his responsibility.
I don't think that having the client control this is a good idea at all.
David conveniently ignored the points I made before, but they are
real issues --- if the client is in charge of starting or stopping the
DB, it just adds potential for mucking things up. I can see the bug
reports now: "I decided I'd make the shutdown routine 'kill -9' the
postmaster because I didn't like the multi-second delay for a normal
shutdown. Now my database is corrupt."

Another set of objections to this center around the fact that with this
sort of arrangement, the database files would necessarily belong to the
client user, since there's no way to launch the postmaster as a
different userid. (Unless the client is running as root, which I
sincerely hope he is not.) That means there's no filesystem protection
between the client and the database, which is another recipe for
trouble. Not much point in keeping an address-space firewall between
client and server when the client can scribble on the database anyway.

regards, tom lane