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

From: "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: How hard would a "no global server" version be?
Date: 2000-08-29 16:30:20
Message-ID: 20000829113020.B10972@rice.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 12:25:08AM -0500, Rob Browning wrote:
> Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
>
> > 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...
>
> Well perhaps I'll become that contingent :>
>

Another use for such a mini config would be the PDA market. IBM's got
DB2 for the Palm, if I remember correctly. That's a little _too_ small a
target, I think, but the new crop of PocketPC devices have enough memory
and horsepower to be useful with a real database.

> > 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 ;)

Naw, that'd suck all the joules out of my battery!

> No doubt, but perhaps the "mini" configuration might be an insidious
> method of initiating the corruption leading to the "one true way".

With the PDA, we'd need a conduit to go back and forth to the desktop,
which runs the 24x7 full server. Corruption by another path...

Ross
--
Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>
NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer
Computer and Information Technology Institute
Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Hollomon 2000-08-29 16:37:19 Re: Backend-internal SPI operations
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-08-29 15:35:15 Backend-internal SPI operations