Re: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. MySQL

At 01:02 10/07/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> You could pre-start servers (ala Apache), then when a connection request
>> comes in, the connection should be pretty fast. This would involve
>> defining, for each database, the number of servers to prestart (default 0),
>
>since there's no portable way for the postmaster
>to pass off a client socket to an already-existing backend.

That's a pain, because you probably don't want to vary the postmaster
behaviour that much. 

Couldn't you modify the connection protocol to request the port of a free
db server, then redo the connect invisibly inside the front end?

The postmaster would have to manage free servers, and mark the db server as
used etc etc.


>It occurs to me that this'd get a whole lot more feasible if one
>postmaster == one database, which is something we *could* do if we
>implemented schemas.  Hiroshi's been arguing that the current hard
>separation between databases in an installation should be done away
>with in favor of schemas, and I'm starting to see his point...

This has other advantages too - I'd like to be able to shutdown *one*
database, and possibly restart it in 'administrator mode' (eg. for a
restore operation). It also means one misbehaving DB doesn't mess up other
DBs. Sounds very good to me.

Does this mean there would be a postmaster-master that told you the
postmaster port to connect to for the desired DB? Or is there a nicer way
of doing this...



----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498)             |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81         |                 _________  \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82         |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|                                |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/