On 2012-11-12 19:21:28 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 10 September 2012 17:50, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > The point of the proposal that I am making is to have a simple, > > low-maintenance solution for people who need a single-application > > database. A compromise somewhere in the middle isn't likely to be an > > improvement for anybody. For instance, if you want to have additional > > connections, you open up a whole collection of communication and > > authentication issues, which potential users of a single-application > > database don't want to cope with. > > So the proposal is to implement a database that can't ever have 2 or > more connections. > ... > It's almost impossible to purchase a CPU these days that doesn't have > multiple cores, so the whole single-process architecture is just dead. > Yes, we want Postgres installed everywhere, but this isn't the way to > achieve that. > > I agree we should allow a PostgreSQL installation to work for a single > user, but I don't see that requires other changes. This idea will > cause endless bugs, thinkos and severely waste our time. So without a > much better justification, I don't think we should do this.
I personally think that a usable & scriptable --single mode is justification enough, even if you don't aggree with the other goals. Having to wait for hours just enter one more command because --single doesn't support any scripts sucks. Especially in recovery situations. I also don't think a single-backend without further child processes is all that helpful - but I think this might be a very useful stepping stone. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
