Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit kapila
Subject Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
Date
Msg-id 6C0B27F7206C9E4CA54AE035729E9C3828548CE5@szxeml509-mbx
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:11 AM Simon Riggs wrote:
On 12 November 2012 21:26, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I couldn't disagree more.  The patch is small, logical, and fixes an
>> awful problem, namely that --single mode is basically unusable.  As to
>> your wider point (namely, that you can't connect to it, therefore it's
>> bad), it has got to be refuted by numerous competing solutions in the
>> market such as http://www.firebirdsql.org/manual/fbmetasecur-embedded.html,
>> and many others.

As far as I remember even MySQL provides such a mode.

> Small is not an argument in favour, just a statement of ease, like
>jumping off a cliff. i.e. lemmings.

>> While it's not as common as it used to be, now and then a piece of
>> software needs to distribute an application as part of a boxed
>> product.  Postgres is horrible at this and doesn't have to be; imagine
>> how much easier the lives of poker tracker would be (for *some* of its
>> users) with an integrated standalone mode: google 'poker tracker
>> postgresql' and take a good long look at problems people face in this
>> scenario.

>I get the installability thang, very very much, I just don't see the
>single process thing as the only solution. At very least an open
>minded analysis of the actual problem and ways of solving it is called
>for, not just reach for a close to hand solution.

Some other usecase where I have seen it required is in telecom billing apps.
In telecom application where this solution works, needs other maintainence connections as well.
Some of the reasons for its use are performance and less maintainence overhead and also their data requirements are
also not so high.
So even if this solution doesn't meet all requirements of single process solution (and neither I think it is written to
addressall)  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..


With Regards,
Amit Kapila.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol