On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 02:47, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> > I bet the win32 port will help advocacy a lot. The other thing that
> > would help I think would be to make it as friendly as possible for ISPs
> > to do virtual hosting. Schemas are probably helping that a lot already,
> > and the only other thing I can think of in that area would be resource
> > monitoring/control. I'm not suggesting that MySQL is better for virtual
> > hosting, but perhaps if PostgreSQL makes it easier than that will give
> > us an edge.
>
> 'K, I've been doing virtual hosting with PostgreSQL for 8 years now (god,
> I feel old) ... what is hard about it?
>
> In fact, we run MySQL (ack!) for some clients, due to their requirements,
> and with the recent changes in our IPs, we're having a bugger of a time
> with IP based access and getting those clients switched to the new IPs
> then we had with PostgreSQL (MySQL uses an SQL based ACL system for
> connections, apparently, vs our 'text based, sed changable pg_hb.conf
> file') ...
>
That's why I said "I'm not suggesting that MySQL is better for virtual
hosting...". I've been virtual hosting with PostgreSQL for years also
(not 8 years though, that's impressive).
I was just kind of thinking out loud. It would be kind of interesting if
there were resource controls, but I think that Tom already said that
would be too resource-intensive and not worth it (although I don't
recall the exact context).
Regards,
Jeff Davis