| From: | "Mark Woodward" <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Multiple logical databases |
| Date: | 2006-02-02 15:57:09 |
| Message-ID: | 16654.24.91.171.78.1138895829.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com |
| 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?
Seriously? No use at all? You don't see any purpose in controlling and
managing multiple postgresql postmaster processes from one central point?
Sure you don't want to think about this a little?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2006-02-02 16:12:47 | Re: Multiple logical databases |
| Previous Message | Mark Woodward | 2006-02-02 15:23:44 | Multiple logical databases |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2006-02-02 16:12:47 | Re: Multiple logical databases |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-02-02 15:34:28 | Re: TODO-Item: TRUNCATE ... CASCADE |