Hiya,
As I've mentioned before, we happilly run and offer PostgreSQL and MySQL hosting to our customers. We also offer shell access which simplifies things a little. I'm a little confused as to why people find having auth control from pg_hba.conf a problem? We never use the same passwords or pam for our DBs either, since it offers a little more security should one or the other be compromised. If you use a tool like webmin, it not really any more complicated. Anyone who complains about it being "too hard" to offer PG as a shared hosting option just hasn't investigated the possibility.
In my experience, many ISPs and hosts don't offer it because they beleive the ROI (time, learning, extra maintenance, patching, updates,etc) will not good.
Regards
Tony.
Craig O'Shannessy wrote:
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.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings