On 15/08/2011 10:36 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Andreas Joseph Krogh
> <andreak@officenet.no> wrote:
>> No, PG has never, and will never, act as an application-server.
> Why in the world not?
The biggest reason is safety. Beyond that, the lack of autonomous
transactions, stored procedures, in-DB timers, and support for any
protocol other than the native Pg database query protocol mean it's also
rather impractical.
I guess theoretically one could embed a JVM / Python instance / whatever
in the postmaster and have it spawn new backends for incoming
connections with other protocols. But ... why? Why add all that
complexity and - more importantly - contaiminate PostgreSQL's address
space with more code that can fail when you don't have to? PLs and user
C procedures are already risk enough as far as I'm concerned.
I *like* the DB being standalone. It's safer from bad code scribbling
garbage across the heap and corrupting shared memory.
What do you gain by trying to make Pg play appserver too?
Now, I have nothing against keeping business logic in the DB. This makes
a lot of sense to me, though it'd be better if it were easier to version
DB changes. What I don't get is having the client access front-end in
the DB too ... that just seems like asking for trouble and security
problems.
> Postgresql has certain features, in particular being able to implement
> functions in any language, that make it uniquely well suited among its
> peers to act as a application server platform.
Actually, I'd say Oracle's really solid Java support, in-db timers, and
autonomous transactions makes it rather better suited.
--
Craig Ringer