On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 14 November 2013 03:41, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have gone through the mail chain of this thread and tried to find
>> the different concerns or open ends for this patch.
>
> Not enough. This feature is clearly being suggested as a way to offer
> Postgres in embedded mode for users by a back door.
Current patch doesn't have such facility and I don't think somebody
can use it as an embedded database.
> Doing that forces
> us to turn off many of the server's features and we will take a huge
> step backwards in features, testing, maintainability of code and
> wasted community time.
>
> "No administrative hassles" is just a complete fiction. Admin will
> become a huge burden for any user in this mode, which will bite the
> community and cause us to waste much time redesigning the server to
> operate on a single session.
>
> -1 from me
What I could understand from your objection is that you don't want
users to get the impression of this feature as an embedded database.
I think as the patch stands, it doesn't have such facility, so
advertising it as an substitute for embedded database would be anyway
inappropriate.
The use case is to provide a standalone mode which will be useful for
cases where today --single mode is required/used and I think
documenting the feature that way is the right way to proceed. If this
addresses your concern, then we can proceed to discuss solutions for
other concerns like security?
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
