Re: Portable PostgreSQL

From: Samik Raychaudhuri <samik(at)freeshell(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Portable PostgreSQL
Date: 2005-10-03 23:47:53
Message-ID: 4341C329.4080803@freeshell.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 10/3/2005 12:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

>Samik Raychaudhuri <samik(at)freeshell(dot)org> writes:
>
>
>>... What I wanted is a no-trace (or minimal trace), no-admin required
>>kind of installation (I won't be able to create a non-admin user in the
>>comp), which, when I am done, I can just delete the installation
>>directory and will be clear.
>>
>>
>
>Postgres isn't really designed to be the sort of "embedded" database
>that you seem to be after. You should look at other alternatives.
>(Berkeley DB is one possibility that's written by friends of ours ;-))
>
>In particular, you'll get zero sympathy here for any request to let the
>database run as an admin-level user. The IPC communication structure we
>use does not allow restricting requests to just one program, and hence
>ignoring security issues is simply not a sane thing to do.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
Thanks for replying Tom. I am not planning to run the DB as admin-level,
just as a normal user. I am actually ready to compromise some security
(it will run inside a local n/w, won't be exposed to internet, there are
firewall inplace etc.) against the learning curve for a new database.
Don't want to leave my favorite db I guess :-)

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ben 2005-10-04 01:01:31 Re: int values from PQExecParams in binary result mode
Previous Message J B 2005-10-03 23:41:38 Re: Integration with MS Sql Server