Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Building server without Apache - Mailing list pgadmin-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Building server without Apache
Date
Msg-id CABUevEx3TRwEQCQbgOhEmP_1=tq+LfZGv7XBK3YhvjYmXNH1nQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Building server without Apache  (Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>)
List pgadmin-hackers


On Jan 12, 2017 4:56 AM, "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@berkus.org> wrote:
> Pgadmin gurus:
>
> I'm trying to create a canonical container image for pgAdmin4 Server.
> However, using Apache is kind of heavyweight for a container.  Has
> anyone run pgAdmin4 against something lighter weight?

If memory serves, the reason why we recommend Apache is that at the
time I last tested, it was the only one of Apache, Lighttpd and Nginx
which would support single-process, multi-thread WSGI apps.

Having a single process is essential, due to the global connection
manager used by pgAdmin - it's the only way we can guarantee affinity
between the user session and the database session. If you can make
that work with servers other than Apache (someone recently suggested
Gunicorn might be able to help), then I'd love to hear about it. There
are no other special requirements of pgAdmin, so really that's all
that stands in your way.


Uwsgi might also be worth investigating. It's pretty light and supports an hybrid model where ISTM it would work if you just set number of processes to 1 (but I haven't tried it with pgadmin specifically. 

/Magnus

pgadmin-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fahar Abbas
Date:
Subject: [pgadmin-hackers] Re: PATCH: RM# 1679 - Background process for "restore" not reportingstatus back to pgAdmin
Next
From: George Gelashvili
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Driver Module