Simon Riggs escribió:

> > 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?

Actually, the whole point of this solution originally was just to serve
pg_upgrade needs, so that it doesn't have to start a complete postmaster
environment just to have to turn off most of what postmaster does, and
with enough protections to disallow everyone else from connecting.

Álvaro Herrera      
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to