On 13 November 2012 06:14, Amit kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> wrote:
>>I get the installability thang, very very much, I just don't see the >>single process thing as the only solution. At very least an open >>minded analysis of the actual problem and ways of solving it is called >>for, not just reach for a close to hand solution. > > Some other usecase where I have seen it required is in telecom billing apps. > In telecom application where this solution works, needs other maintainence > connections as well. > Some of the reasons for its use are performance and less maintainence > overhead and also their data requirements are > also not so high. > So even if this solution doesn't meet all requirements of single process > solution (and neither I think it is written to address all) but can't we > think of it as first version and then based on requirements extend it to have > other capabilities: > a. to have a mechnism for other background processes (autovacuum, checkpoint, > ..). > b. more needs to be thought of.. Why would we spend time trying to put back something that is already there? Why not simply avoid removing it in the first place? -- Simon Riggs 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