From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, "hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi" <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
Date: | 2012-11-13 18:58:56 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYP6T5Zr-+oEurRS0tJmrDhk5Qf50LEsQ9TPB5yuqCaiw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> The most popular relational database in the world is Microsoft Access,
>> not MySQL. Access appears desirable because it allows a single user to
>> create and use a database (which is very good). But all business
>> databases have a requirement for at least one of: high availability,
>> multi-user access or downstream processing in other parts of the
>> business.
>
> That's a mighty sweeping claim, which you haven't offered adequate
> evidence for. The fact of the matter is that there is *lots* of demand
> for simple single-user databases, and what I'm proposing is at least a
> first step towards getting there.
>
> The main disadvantage of approaching this via the existing single-user
> mode is that you won't have any autovacuum, bgwriter, etc, support.
> But the flip side is that that lack of infrastructure is a positive
> advantage for certain admittedly narrow use-cases, such as disaster
> recovery and pg_upgrade. So while I agree that this isn't the only
> form of single-user mode that we'd like to support, I think it is *a*
> form we'd like to support, and I don't see why you appear to be against
> having it at all.
>
> A more reasonable objection would be that we need to make sure that this
> isn't foreclosing the option of having a multi-process environment with
> a single user connection. I don't see that it is, but it might be wise
> to sketch exactly how that case would work before accepting this.
I'm not particularly excited about providing more single-user mode
options, but I think it's worth having this particular thing because
it makes pg_upgrade more robust. Whether we do anything else is
something we can litigate when the time comes.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-11-13 19:45:14 | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-11-13 18:54:45 | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL |