Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>

From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Amit kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com>, "hlinnaka@iki.fi" <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-11-13T12:13:12Z
Lists: 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 to address 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


Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. Remove now redundant pgpipe code.