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

Re: Multiple logical databases

From: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
To: Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Multiple logical databases
Date: 2006-02-02 16:12:47
Message-ID: 43E22F7F.9000709@pse-consulting.de (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Mark Woodward wrote:
>>"Mark Woodward" <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
>>
>>>One of the problems with the current PostgreSQL design is that all the
>>>databases operated by one postmaster server process are interlinked at
>>>some core level. They all share the same system tables. If one database
>>>becomes corrupt because of disk or something, the whole cluster is
>>>affected.
>>
>>This problem is not as large as you paint it, because most of the system
>>catalogs are *not* shared.
>>
>>
>>>Does anyone see this as useful?
> 
> 
> Seriously? No use at all? You don't see any purpose in controlling and
> managing multiple postgresql postmaster processes from one central point?

pgAdmin does so. IMHO it's totally sufficient to handle this on a client 
side level.

Regards,
Andreas

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Csaba NagyDate: 2006-02-02 16:14:58
Subject: streamlined standby process
Previous:From: Mark WoodwardDate: 2006-02-02 15:57:09
Subject: Re: Multiple logical databases

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2006-02-02 16:21:21
Subject: Re: Multiple logical databases
Previous:From: Mark WoodwardDate: 2006-02-02 15:57:09
Subject: Re: Multiple logical databases

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