Re: How hard would a "no global server" version be? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Lockhart
Subject Re: How hard would a "no global server" version be?
Date
Msg-id 39AB3AA6.C829F5D1@alumni.caltech.edu
Whole thread Raw
In response to How hard would a "no global server" version be?  (Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu>)
Responses Re: How hard would a "no global server" version be?  (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
> So what I'd like to ask is this:
>   (1) Are there any plans to add anything like this?

Not specifically. Postgres is a full-up database, and afaik there isn't
a contingent of our developer community which is sufficiently interested
to pursue "mini" configurations. But...

>   (2) How hard do you think it would be for an outsider to add this
>       feature as an option, and if someone did, would you be likely to
>       be interested in incorporating the result upstream?

in the environments I'm familiar with (e.g. RH/Mandrake with PostgreSQL
and Gnome), it would be pretty easy to wrap the Postgres libraries and
backend to be a "standalone server" application. When you start a
"postmaster", you can specify the listener port number, database
location, etc, and on specific systems you could easily have a scripted
startup/installation procedure which gets things set up.

Of course we'd prefer that people realize that everything in the world
would be better if they just had a Postgres server running 24x7 ;)
                   - Thomas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] RE: Access PostgreSQL server via SSL/Internet
Next
From: Thomas Lockhart
Date:
Subject: Re: Session characteristics