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 http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
