| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |
| 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 |