| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | ow <oneway_111(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Are we losing momentum? |
| Date: | 2003-04-15 23:28:27 |
| Message-ID: | 10954.1050449307@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
ow <oneway_111(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> --- Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> wrote:
>> Are you talking about queries between databases on the same
>> postmaster
> Yes
> [snip]
> If db3 goes down then app12 is not affected, app23 could be partially
> affected (e.g. user may not be able to run historic queries) and app3
> is completely unavailable.
This is nonsense. There is no scenario where one DB "goes down" and
other DBs on the same postmaster remain up. There are advantages to
having separate DBs on one postmaster (like separate copies of the
system catalogs), but there's very little reliability differential
compared to a multi-schema approach.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ow | 2003-04-15 23:56:24 | Re: Are we losing momentum? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-04-15 22:51:00 | Re: Tech Docs and Consultants |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-15 23:29:48 | Re: How can I get a column INT4 to be UNSIGNED ? |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2003-04-15 23:20:44 | Re: Help using pgfsck |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Wei Weng | 2003-04-15 23:29:35 | Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-15 23:23:32 | Re: Transaction problem? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ow | 2003-04-15 23:56:24 | Re: Are we losing momentum? |
| Previous Message | Nic Ferrier | 2003-04-15 22:43:33 | Re: the build |