Simon Riggs escribió: > > 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?
Actually, the whole point of this solution originally was just to serve pg_upgrade needs, so that it doesn't have to start a complete postmaster environment just to have to turn off most of what postmaster does, and with enough protections to disallow everyone else from connecting. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
