From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: an enhancement idea |
Date: | 2010-12-06 00:55:18 |
Message-ID: | 4CFC3476.3010708@postnewspapers.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 12/06/2010 04:41 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
>> If you want that level of isolation, you have to give each user his own
>> cluster.
>
> as postgresql is currently structured, yes, and further, each cluster
> needs its own listener port which is, IMHO, rather ugly.
>
> My idea of adding an 'instance' layer allows clusters to share ports.
How do you plan to handle the use of system V shared memory? Each
cluster needs its own reserved, pinned shm segment. You'll be wasting
memory on idle clusters while starving busy clusters for memory.
For shared hosting / multi-tenant DB needs, wouldn't it be better to
improve Pg's core to handle the job better? Per-user storage quotas,
database-scoped user IDs, age-limited transactions (though that can
already be done pretty easily with a simple script), access-filtered
views in pg_catalog, etc.
--
Craig Ringer
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-12-06 05:47:54 | Re: PG84 and SELinux |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2010-12-05 23:00:39 | Re: One-click Installers for 9.1 Alpha 2 (ETA) |