On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Craig Ringer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
I wonder if it would make sense to add support to mount database in
*read-only* mode from multiple servers though. I am thinking about
data warehouse kind of operations where multiple servers can be
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Dawid Kuroczko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not quite workable. Remember that table data is not always available on
the block device -- there are pages modified in the buffer cache (shared
memory), and other machines have no access to the other's shared
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Pavan Deolasee
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Dawid Kuroczko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not quite workable. Remember that table data is not always available on
the block device -- there are pages modified in the buffer cache
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
[...]
I am not suggesting one read-write and many read-only architecture. I am
rather suggesting all read-only systems. I would be interested in this
setup if I run large read-only queries on historical data and need easy
scalability. With read-only setup, you can easily
Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not suggesting one read-write and many read-only architecture. I am
rather suggesting all read-only systems. I would be interested in this
setup if I run large read-only queries on historical data and need easy
scalability. With read-only setup,
Using windows XP and TCP/IP network.
I install PostgreSQL on a client PC and put the data files on a
networked drive (instead of the local drive). Postgres as user and
localport. This works well.
Now I install postgresSQL on another client machine and point it to
the same data directory on the
On 2008-04-11 08:53, J Ottery wrote:
I install PostgreSQL on a client PC and put the data files on a
networked drive (instead of the local drive). Postgres as user and
localport. This works well.
This is not the way it is meant to work, and it can eat your data.
Now I install postgresSQL
J Ottery wrote:
Using windows XP and TCP/IP network.
I install PostgreSQL on a client PC and put the data files on a
networked drive (instead of the local drive). Postgres as user and
localport. This works well.
I wouldn't personally trust this setup.
Now I install postgresSQL on another
J Ottery wrote:
Thanks so much Craig. I have decided to migrate to Postgres and most
of my applications are single computer based but I need to plan for
future needs. Some research is in order for me.
All you should need to do is allow the user / administrator to configure
the connection
Tomasz Ostrowski wrote:
On 2008-04-11 08:53, J Ottery wrote:
I install PostgreSQL on a client PC and put the data files on a
networked drive (instead of the local drive). Postgres as user and
localport. This works well.
This is not the way it is meant to work, and it can eat your
am Thu, dem 10.04.2008, um 23:53:18 -0700 mailte J Ottery folgendes:
Using windows XP and TCP/IP network.
I install PostgreSQL on a client PC and put the data files on a
networked drive (instead of the local drive). Postgres as user and
localport. This works well.
Now I install
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 1:04 PM, A. Kretschmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You idea is complete ill. PostgreSQL is a Server-Client-database, with
one Server and multiple Clients. You can't access to the same
database-files with multiple database-servers.
I wonder if it would make sense to
On Apr 11, 5:34 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A.
Kretschmer) wrote:
am Thu, dem 10.04.2008, um 23:53:18 -0700 mailte J Ottery folgendes:
Using windows XP and TCP/IP network.
I install PostgreSQL on a client PC and put the data files on a
networked drive (instead of the local drive). Postgres
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
I wonder if it would make sense to add support to mount database in
*read-only* mode from multiple servers though. I am thinking about
data warehouse kind of operations where multiple servers can be
used answer read-only queries. Is there a use case for such applications
14 matches
Mail list logo
