Re: embedded/"serverless" (Re: serverless postgresql)

David Garamond wrote:

> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:23:40AM -0700, Rick Gigger wrote:
>>
>>> Yes but sometimes an enterprise level application may need to be put
>>> on a
>>> laptop and taken off-line.  Having an embedded database that is
>>> compatible
>>> with the one on the server makes this a bit easier to do.
>>
>>
>> Why can't you just run a postgres instance for this?  What is magic
>> about "embedded" for this sort of application?  Sounds like a clever
>> wrapper script is all that's necessary for something like that, no?
>
>
> The "magic" seems to be that the application appears to be managing
> the database by its own, without the help of any separate database
> product. I've seen commercial product that uses embedded Firebird and
> changes the default extension of the database file from *.fdb into
> *.dat or something.
>
> Of course, with the current cluster/database directory layout, it's
> still easy to spot PostgreSQL footprints all over the place
> (pg_hba.conf, pg_xlog/, PG_VERSION, etc).
>

It's not so important to hide the fact that postgres is being used as it
is to spare the user from having to know anything about general database
administration when the all the app really needs from the db is for it
to be a more powerful way of storing and retreiving information from
user-owned files.