Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> The most popular relational database in the world is Microsoft Access,
> not MySQL. Access appears desirable because it allows a single user to
> create and use a database (which is very good). But all business
> databases have a requirement for at least one of: high availability,
> multi-user access or downstream processing in other parts of the
> business.
That's a mighty sweeping claim, which you haven't offered adequate
evidence for. The fact of the matter is that there is *lots* of demand
for simple single-user databases, and what I'm proposing is at least a
first step towards getting there.
The main disadvantage of approaching this via the existing single-user
mode is that you won't have any autovacuum, bgwriter, etc, support.
But the flip side is that that lack of infrastructure is a positive
advantage for certain admittedly narrow use-cases, such as disaster
recovery and pg_upgrade. So while I agree that this isn't the only
form of single-user mode that we'd like to support, I think it is *a*
form we'd like to support, and I don't see why you appear to be against
having it at all.
A more reasonable objection would be that we need to make sure that this
isn't foreclosing the option of having a multi-process environment with
a single user connection. I don't see that it is, but it might be wise
to sketch exactly how that case would work before accepting this.
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
