Aidan Van Dyk <ai...@highrise.ca> writes:
> So, in the spirit of not painting ourselves into a tiny corner here on
> the whole "single backend" and "embedded database" problem with pg
> options, can we generalize this a bit?
> Any way we could make psql connect to a "given fd", as an option? In
> theory, that could be something opened by some out-side-of-postgresql
> tunnel with 3rd party auth in the same app that uses libpq directly,
> or it could be a fd prepared by something that specifically launched
> a single-backend postgres, like in the case of pg_upgrade, pg_uprade
> itself, and passed to psql, etc, which would be passed in as options.
This seems to me to be going in exactly the wrong direction. What
I visualize this feature as responding to is demand for a *simple*,
minimal configuration, minimal administration, quasi-embedded database.
What you propose above is not that, but is if anything even more
complicated for an application to deal with than a regular persistent
server. More complication is *the wrong thing* for this use case.
The people who would be interested in this are currently using something
like SQLite within a single application program. It hasn't got any of
the features you're suggesting either, and I don't think anybody wishes
it did.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
