Re: embedded/"serverless" (Re: serverless postgresql)

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:23:40AM -0700, Rick Gigger wrote:
> >
> > Yes but sometimes an enterprise level application may need to be put on a
> > laptop and taken off-line. Having an embedded database that is compatible
> > with the one on the server makes this a bit easier to do.
>
> Why can't you just run a postgres instance for this? What is magic
> about "embedded" for this sort of application? Sounds like a clever
> wrapper script is all that's necessary for something like that, no?

That's what I still don't get. Embedded means something running on [and
probably running] your wrist watch _not_ something running on a full blown
system.

I understand in this thread's context that embedded is used to mean embedded
within an application on an ordinary system, took me a while to realise that
though, but just means I can't see why it is wanted like that. Imagine if there
was a DB around that was used by direct library calls from an application. What
would be one of the first things that would be programmed using it? A server
perhaps?

--
Nigel Andrews