| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Henry, Nigel, CYFD" <nigel(dot)henry(at)state(dot)nm(dot)us>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Isolated databases or instances |
| Date: | 2007-02-16 21:16:08 |
| Message-ID: | 7692.1171660568@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 13:18, Henry, Nigel, CYFD wrote:
>> We are at the beginning of the building of a 3-tier
>> development/test/uat environment. We would like some advice on how
>> the PostgreSQL database should be configured for this environment.
> What exactly are you trying to accomplish with multiple PostgreSQL
> instances here? I can't see there being any great advantage to three
> separate instances than having three discrete databases defined in one
> instance.
Separating development and production instances seems perfectly sensible
to me. For instance, if your development code triggers a crash in
Postgres, you don't really want that event to take out your production
sessions. Also, you might want to run Postgres version x+1 for awhile
as development before replacing version x for production.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua Kramer | 2007-02-16 21:35:38 | Re: Isolated databases or instances |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2007-02-16 19:52:10 | Re: Isolated databases or instances |