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 (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers