Re: How hard would a "no global server" version be?

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Rob Browning <rlb(at)cs(dot)utexas(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: How hard would a "no global server" version be?
Date: 2000-08-29 04:23:02
Message-ID: 39AB3AA6.C829F5D1@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> So what I'd like to ask is this:
> (1) Are there any plans to add anything like this?

Not specifically. Postgres is a full-up database, and afaik there isn't
a contingent of our developer community which is sufficiently interested
to pursue "mini" configurations. But...

> (2) How hard do you think it would be for an outsider to add this
> feature as an option, and if someone did, would you be likely to
> be interested in incorporating the result upstream?

in the environments I'm familiar with (e.g. RH/Mandrake with PostgreSQL
and Gnome), it would be pretty easy to wrap the Postgres libraries and
backend to be a "standalone server" application. When you start a
"postmaster", you can specify the listener port number, database
location, etc, and on specific systems you could easily have a scripted
startup/installation procedure which gets things set up.

Of course we'd prefer that people realize that everything in the world
would be better if they just had a Postgres server running 24x7 ;)

- Thomas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 2000-08-29 04:32:21 Re: Session characteristics
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2000-08-29 04:15:40 Re: [PATCHES] RE: Access PostgreSQL server via SSL/Internet