On Monday, May 23, 2016 1:17:13 PM EDT Albe Laurenz wrote:
> David G. Johnston wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 6:54 AM, aluka raju <alukaraju2894@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> As given in the FAQ's that postgresql cannot be embedded
> >> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FAQ#Can_PostgreSQL_be_embedded.3F .
> >>
> >> Is their any possibility to make it embedded. Till now postgresql has not
> >> done this embedded
mode and i want to work on how it can be embedded
> >> and contribute. please help me how to start or suggest the idea-.
> >
> >
> > Step 1 - Fork the project...
> >
> > Changing the fundamental architecture of the system is not something I
> > would expect a project with
this long of history to attempt to do
> > directly. While the people working on the core product are welcome to
> > spend their time however they like I don't imagine any of them would be
> > willing to commit code to core pertaining to this capability. Most, if
> > not all, of them likely don't believe it is even a good idea generally.
>
>
> There was this patch by Tom Lane in 2012:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/12511.1346631791@sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> This can be used as something like an embedded database.
> Nothing more happened with this patch, though.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
I'm thinking that the recent work on parallel workers is going to make an
embedded server hard to impossible, depending how you define "embedded".
Individual workers are still separate O/S processes, so if the requirement is
that everything must be in-process, that's not going to work. That's of course
fixable by setting the number of bg workers to 0, but even if you do that
there's the issue of autovac for example.