Re: How hard would a "no global server" version be?
От | Thomas Lockhart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: How hard would a "no global server" version be? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 39AB3AA6.C829F5D1@alumni.caltech.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | How hard would a "no global server" version be? (Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: How hard would a "no global server" version be?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> So what I'd like to ask is this: > (1) Are there any plans to add anything like this? Not specifically. Postgres is a full-up database, and afaik there isn't a contingent of our developer community which is sufficiently interested to pursue "mini" configurations. But... > (2) How hard do you think it would be for an outsider to add this > feature as an option, and if someone did, would you be likely to > be interested in incorporating the result upstream? in the environments I'm familiar with (e.g. RH/Mandrake with PostgreSQL and Gnome), it would be pretty easy to wrap the Postgres libraries and backend to be a "standalone server" application. When you start a "postmaster", you can specify the listener port number, database location, etc, and on specific systems you could easily have a scripted startup/installation procedure which gets things set up. Of course we'd prefer that people realize that everything in the world would be better if they just had a Postgres server running 24x7 ;) - Thomas
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: