Re: Multiple logical databases

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Multiple logical databases
Date: 2006-02-02 22:13:24
Message-ID: 200602021413.24224.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Mark,

> Even though they run on the same machine, run the same version of the
> software, and are used by the same applications, they have NO
> interoperability. For now, lets just accept that they need to be on
> separate physical clusters because some need to be able to started and
> stopped while others need to remain running, there are other reasons,
> but one reason will suffice for the discussion.

Well, to answer your original question, I personally would not see your
general idea as useful at all. I admin 9 or 10 PostgreSQL servers
currently and have never run across a need, or even a desire, to do what
you are doing.

In fact, if there's any general demand, it's to go the opposite way:
patches to lock down the system tables and prevent switching databases to
support ISPs and other shared-hosting situations.

For an immediate solution to what you are encountering, have you looked at
pgPool?

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2006-02-02 23:12:25 Re: Multiple logical databases
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2006-02-02 20:20:20 Re: Backslashes in string literals

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2006-02-02 23:12:25 Re: Multiple logical databases
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-02-02 21:45:06 Re: [BUGS] BUG #2171: Differences compiling plpgsql in