Re: How hard would a "no global server" version be?
| От | Thomas Lockhart |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: How hard would a "no global server" version be? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 39AB3AA6.C829F5D1@alumni.caltech.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | How hard would a "no global server" version be? (Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu>) |
| Ответы |
Re: How hard would a "no global server" version be?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
> So what I'd like to ask is this:
> (1) Are there any plans to add anything like this?
Not specifically. Postgres is a full-up database, and afaik there isn't
a contingent of our developer community which is sufficiently interested
to pursue "mini" configurations. But...
> (2) How hard do you think it would be for an outsider to add this
> feature as an option, and if someone did, would you be likely to
> be interested in incorporating the result upstream?
in the environments I'm familiar with (e.g. RH/Mandrake with PostgreSQL
and Gnome), it would be pretty easy to wrap the Postgres libraries and
backend to be a "standalone server" application. When you start a
"postmaster", you can specify the listener port number, database
location, etc, and on specific systems you could easily have a scripted
startup/installation procedure which gets things set up.
Of course we'd prefer that people realize that everything in the world
would be better if they just had a Postgres server running 24x7 ;)
- Thomas
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: