On 2012-11-12 19:21:28 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 10 September 2012 17:50, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> > The point of the proposal that I am making is to have a simple,
> > low-maintenance solution for people who need a single-application
> > database. A compromise somewhere in the middle isn't likely to be an
> > improvement for anybody. For instance, if you want to have additional
> > connections, you open up a whole collection of communication and
> > authentication issues, which potential users of a single-application
> > database don't want to cope with.
>
> So the proposal is to implement a database that can't ever have 2 or
> more connections.
> ...
> It's almost impossible to purchase a CPU these days that doesn't have
> multiple cores, so the whole single-process architecture is just dead.
> Yes, we want Postgres installed everywhere, but this isn't the way to
> achieve that.
>
> I agree we should allow a PostgreSQL installation to work for a single
> user, but I don't see that requires other changes. This idea will
> cause endless bugs, thinkos and severely waste our time. So without a
> much better justification, I don't think we should do this.
I personally think that a usable & scriptable --single mode is
justification enough, even if you don't aggree with the other
goals. Having to wait for hours just enter one more command because
--single doesn't support any scripts sucks. Especially in recovery
situations.
I also don't think a single-backend without further child processes is
all that helpful - but I think this might be a very useful stepping
stone.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
