Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+U5nM+rBxpyfLw4uUN64hyh4tDFC=ovsdot41Bgc0xE=Jih9g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol (Amit kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE
protocol
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 13 November 2012 06:14, Amit kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com> wrote: >>I get the installability thang, very very much, I just don't see the >>single process thing as the only solution. At very least an open >>minded analysis of the actual problem and ways of solving it is called >>for, not just reach for a close to hand solution. > > Some other usecase where I have seen it required is in telecom billing apps. > In telecom application where this solution works, needs other maintainence connections as well. > Some of the reasons for its use are performance and less maintainence overhead and also their data requirements are > also not so high. > So even if this solution doesn't meet all requirements of single process solution (and neither I think it is written toaddress all) but can't we think of it as first version and then based on requirements extend it to have other capabilities: > a. to have a mechnism for other background processes (autovacuum, checkpoint, ..). > b. more needs to be thought of.. Why would we spend time trying to put back something that is already there? Why not simply avoid removing it in the first place? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: