Tom Lane wrote:
>"Rick Gigger" <rick@alpinenetworking.com> writes:
>
>
>>I to would absolutely love to just include a postgres dll and have postgres
>>in process and just store everything in a nice little file but from what I
>>have read hear that would involve major changes that the developers on not
>>interested in making.
>>
>>
>
>Not only are the developers uninterested in it, the developers actively
>oppose it. We think an embedded database library cannot be reliable
>enough to meet our notion of a "database", since it would be subject to
>failures anytime the surrounding application has a bug. Keeping the
>client code in a separate process is a far more robust design.
>
>
>
That makes sense to me. I wonder if sqlite suffers for this problem
(e.g. app crashing and corrupting the database).
What about the notion of running postmaster on-demand as the user? Is
that something that anyone has experience with? It seems like it would
solve the complex configuration problems without compromising robustness
or requiring any special support other than sufficient command-line
parameters.
Oh yeah, that brings me to another question. I was looking at the
postmaster command-line switches and I couldn't find any that would
allow me to point it at an arbitrary config file but then I had a look
around and it seems that the .conf files are already used by the various
startup scripts. Does postmaster itself ever read the .conf files or is
it controlled strictly by switches?