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
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 |
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 |