On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> The most popular relational database in the world is Microsoft Access, >> not MySQL. Access appears desirable because it allows a single user to >> create and use a database (which is very good). But all business >> databases have a requirement for at least one of: high availability, >> multi-user access or downstream processing in other parts of the >> business. > > That's a mighty sweeping claim, which you haven't offered adequate > evidence for. The fact of the matter is that there is *lots* of demand > for simple single-user databases, and what I'm proposing is at least a > first step towards getting there. > > The main disadvantage of approaching this via the existing single-user > mode is that you won't have any autovacuum, bgwriter, etc, support. > But the flip side is that that lack of infrastructure is a positive > advantage for certain admittedly narrow use-cases, such as disaster > recovery and pg_upgrade. So while I agree that this isn't the only > form of single-user mode that we'd like to support, I think it is *a* > form we'd like to support, and I don't see why you appear to be against > having it at all. > > A more reasonable objection would be that we need to make sure that this > isn't foreclosing the option of having a multi-process environment with > a single user connection. I don't see that it is, but it might be wise > to sketch exactly how that case would work before accepting this.
I'm not particularly excited about providing more single-user mode options, but I think it's worth having this particular thing because it makes pg_upgrade more robust. Whether we do anything else is something we can litigate when the time comes. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
