On 10.09.2012 18:12, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Notably, while the lack of any background processes is just what you want
for pg_upgrade and disaster recovery, an ordinary application is probably
going to want to rely on autovacuum; and we need bgwriter and other
background processes for best performance. So I'm speculating about
having a postmaster process that isn't listening on any ports, but is
managing background processes in addition to a single child backend.
That's for another day though.
Since we are forking a child process anyway, and potentially other
auxiliary processes too, would it make sense to allow multiple backends too
(allow multiple local applications connect to this instance)? I believe (I
may be wrong) that embedded databases (SQLLite et. al.) use a library
interface, in that the application makes a library call and waits for that
API call to finish (unless, of course, the library supports async
operations or the application uses threads). The implementation you are
proposing uses socket communication, which lends itself very easily to
client-server model, and if possible, it should be leveraged to provide for
multiple applications talking to one local DB.
[scratches head] How's that different from the normal postmaster mode?
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: