The basic philosophy of system design is isolation.
One system component's crash should better not interfere others.
System should restrict destruction to minimum.
1.If the underling provide hostname or DNS facility, OK! It is better!
PG should take the benefit of it.
2.If the underling lack of hostname or DNS facility, Anyway, PG should
be founctional without it.
#1 and #2 are NOT conflict.
You further deduced conclusion is untenable.
Then ... I answer you further deduce.
Q1: Should it also be functional without sockets?
A1: If the system lack of IP sockets, PG should be founctional with
unix-domain sockets. ...
Q2: How about without a file system?
A2: We suppose PG support raw devices, if file system crashed, raw
devices part of PG should remain founctional.
Q3: Without an OS?
A3: Think about vmware, If my vmware workstation crashed, I could
transfer my guest machine to vmware ESX which runs on bare metal.
The conclusion is obvious:
If underling lack of hostname or DNS facility, PG should be
founctional with IP address.
Still:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 08:04, Robert Young <yayooo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Database should be functional without underlying hostname or DNS facility.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 02:17, Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au> wrote:
> On 10/11/11 02:24, Robert Young wrote:
>> Sure! It give the right information to workaround the problem.
>> But as I said:
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 07:11, Robert Young <yayooo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2.hard-coding is NOT configurable, that is the problem must be aided
>>> from OUTSIDE of the system to workaround.
>>>
>> And
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 08:04, Robert Young <yayooo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Database should be functional without underlying hostname or DNS facility.
>
> Why?
>
> Should it also be functional without sockets?
>
> How about without a file system?
>
> Without an OS?
>
>
> PostgreSQL is an application running on an OS, and expects to be able to
> use the basic services of that OS. Those services include local DNS
> resolution of local host names. Every OS since Windows 3.1.1, Mac OS 7,
> and early BSD UNIXes has provided local DNS resolution and loopback
> sockets. Why should PostgreSQL accomodate the lack of them? If it
> should, where does it stop accomodating broken and cut-down OSes?
>
> If you want an embedded database for an extremely cut down OS,
> PostgreSQL isn't particularly suitable for a lot of reasons. For any
> other use case there's no reason to expect local DNS resolution to be
> broken.
>
> --
> Craig Ringer
>
>