On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2013-12-05 11:39:29 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> I think this proposal is a bit deadlocked now. >> >> - There are technical concerns about launching a server executable from >> within a client. >> >> - There are conceptual concerns about promoting an embedded database mode. >> >> On the other hand: >> >> - Everyone would like to have a way to use psql (and other basic >> clients) in stand-alone mode. >> The only solutions I see are: >> >> 1. do nothing >> >> 2. do everything (i.e., existing terminal mode plus socket mode plus >> embedded mode), letting the user work out the differences >> >> Pick one. ;-) > > 3) make it an explicit parameter, outside the database DSN, and let the > clients contain a tiny bit of explict code about it. There really > aren't that many clients that can use such a mode sensibly. > > If we ever want to support a real embedded mode, much, much more than > this is needed. I don't think we should let that stop us from improving > single user mode.
Yeah, seriously. I don't understand what the big deal is here. The right design here is 99.44% clear here, and the committer (presumably Tom) can handle the other 0.56% however he'd like. Let's do this and move on. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
