From: | "Craig O'Shannessy" <craig(at)ucw(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Chris Travers <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com>, "Randal L(dot) Schwartz" <merlyn(at)stonehenge(dot)com>, Randolf Richardson <rr(at)8x(dot)ca>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Humor me: Postgresql vs. MySql (esp. licensing) |
Date: | 2003-12-01 04:45:27 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0312011541430.14188-100000@mail.ucw.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> There is another thing too-- MySQL manages connection permissions entirely
>
> >within the RDBMS, while PostgreSQL relies on the pg_hba.conf. This makes
> >managing a database server in a shared hosting environment a bit harder.
> >While I appreciate the PostgreSQL way of doing things, I realize that it is
> >a bit harder to make work for the average web hosting provider. I am
> >currently looking at the possibility of building a solution, but no one has
> >expressed interest, so I am not sure.
> >
> >
> >
> Ahh just run different instances for each customer.
This wouldn't really work for a ISP would it? A fairly low spec machine
with a few hundred low-hit websites, maybe 60 of them wanting a database
for their blogs?
My ISP runs mysql, I don't get shell access :((, but I can remotely
connect to their mysql server from home. If running sixty instances of
PostgreSQL, wouldn't you have to have 60 different port numbers, not to
mention a whole lot of RAM?
I've asked them to put up PostgreSQL as an alternative, but they just say
"too hard" and don't want to talk about it.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-12-01 04:52:10 | Re: ISO 8601 "Time Intervals" of the "format with time-unit |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2003-12-01 04:39:45 | Re: Humor me: Postgresql vs. MySql (esp. licensing) |