Re: unorthodox use of PG for a customer

> he doesn't want the overhead, dependencies and worries of anything like
an external DB with a DBA, etc... . He also wants this to be fast.

So they're trading consistency concerns for ... not having a central db?
Even if your shop requires a DBA for any DB, it sounds like a really bad
deal.

Jim

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 1:18 PM, David Gauthier <davegauthierpg(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> Hi Everyone:
>
> I'm going to throw this internal customer request out for ideas, even
> though I think it's a bit crazy. I'm on the brink of telling him it's
> impractical and/or inadvisable. But maybe someone has a solution.
>
> He's writing a script/program that runs on a workstation and needs to
> write data to a DB. This process also sends work to a batch system on a
> server farm external to the workstation that will create multiple, parallel
> jobs/processes that also have to write to the DB as well. The workstation
> may have many of these jobs running at the same time. And there are 58
> workstation which all have/use locally mounted disks for this work.
>
> At first blush, this is easy. Just create a DB on a server and have all
> those clients work with it. But he's also adamant about having the DB on
> the same server(s) that ran the script AND on the locally mounted disk. He
> said he doesn't want the overhead, dependencies and worries of anything
> like an external DB with a DBA, etc... . He also wants this to be fast.
>
> My first thought was SQLite. Apparently, they now have some sort of
> multiple, concurrent write ability. But there's no way those batch jobs on
> remote machines are going to be able to get at the locally mounted disk on
> the workstation. So I dismissed that idea. Then I thought about having 58
> PG installs, one per workstation, each serving all the jobs pertaining to
> that workstation. That could work. But 58 DB instances ? If he didn't
> like the ideal of one DBA, 58 can't be good. Still, the DB would be on the
> workstation which seems to be what he wants.
>
> I can't think of anything better. Does anyone have any ideas?
>
> Thanks in Advance !
>
>