| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rob Browning <rlb(at)cs(dot)utexas(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: How hard would a "no global server" version be? |
| Date: | 2000-08-29 04:23:02 |
| Message-ID: | 39AB3AA6.C829F5D1@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-08-29 04:32:21 | Re: Session characteristics |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-08-29 04:15:40 | Re: [PATCHES] RE: Access PostgreSQL server via SSL/Internet |