jhihn1 <jhihn1@umbc.edu> writes:
> I don't understand what is so hard about doing it this way.
If you want separate installations, make separate installations. Don't
expect multiple databases in a single installation to be implemented
with the same amount of overhead as separate installations would be.
If we did it that way, we'd legitimately get complaints.
> It would make replication so simple and fast.
No it wouldn't; as I've been trying to explain to you, there are a lot
of reasons why rsync'ing a database won't work. Fixing a few of them
doesn't produce a working solution. Nor are we going to contort the
system design to make a fundamentally wrongheaded approach to
replication work. rsync is just not the basis of a workable solution,
because it doesn't and can't know anything about the database state or
the semantics of the different files in the database.
regards, tom lane
