| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mark Woodward" <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Multiple logical databases |
| Date: | 2006-02-02 15:19:04 |
| Message-ID: | 15666.1138893544@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"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?
No...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Woodward | 2006-02-02 15:23:44 | Multiple logical databases |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-02-02 15:13:30 | Re: Multiple logical databases |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Woodward | 2006-02-02 15:23:44 | Multiple logical databases |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-02-02 15:13:30 | Re: Multiple logical databases |