Re: Multiple logical databases

From: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
To: Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Multiple logical databases
Date: 2006-02-02 16:12:47
Message-ID: 43E22F7F.9000709@pse-consulting.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Mark Woodward wrote:
>>"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?

pgAdmin does so. IMHO it's totally sufficient to handle this on a client
side level.

Regards,
Andreas

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Csaba Nagy 2006-02-02 16:14:58 streamlined standby process
Previous Message Mark Woodward 2006-02-02 15:57:09 Re: Multiple logical databases

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-02-02 16:21:21 Re: Multiple logical databases
Previous Message Mark Woodward 2006-02-02 15:57:09 Re: Multiple logical databases