| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, "hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi" <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
| Date: | 2012-11-13 13:05:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20121113130501.GC4690@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs escribió:
> > So even if this solution doesn't meet all requirements of single
> > process solution (and neither I think it is written to address all)
> > but can't we think of it as first version and then based on
> > requirements extend it to have other capabilities:
> > a. to have a mechnism for other background processes (autovacuum, checkpoint, ..).
> > b. more needs to be thought of..
>
> Why would we spend time trying to put back something that is already
> there? Why not simply avoid removing it in the first place?
Actually, the whole point of this solution originally was just to serve
pg_upgrade needs, so that it doesn't have to start a complete postmaster
environment just to have to turn off most of what postmaster does, and
with enough protections to disallow everyone else from connecting.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-11-13 14:28:51 | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-11-13 12:13:12 | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |