Steve Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ much snipped ]
> Vacuuming and analysing can be handled using the algorithms (and the code,
> come to that) from pg_autovacuum.
Autovacuum will undoubtedly migrate into the core. I'm not sure how
soon, or whether the end result will look much like the
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:04:29PM -0700, Rick Gigger wrote:
[PostgreSQL ill-suited to embedded use]
> How about the following comment from an earlier post:
>
> > Now, while I think that an embedded fork of PostgreSQL is completely
> > missing the point I do think that a low maintenance fork or
> "Rick Gigger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> All of this explains why an embedded PostgreSQL isn't a great idea. It
> >> being a true multi-user database means that even if you went though
> >> all the work needed to turn it into an embedded database you wouldn't
> >> get most of the advantages
"Rick Gigger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> All of this explains why an embedded PostgreSQL isn't a great idea. It
>> being a true multi-user database means that even if you went though
>> all the work needed to turn it into an embedded database you wouldn't
>> get most of the advantages.
> Is it
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, 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 serve
Chris Ochs wrote:
I still have to respectfully disagree. Postgresql is IMO just the wrong
software for the job, and given that there are still a number of really
important things that postgresql lacks, it should concentrate on those.I
am not against it however for technical reasons, because th
I still have to respectfully disagree. Postgresql is IMO just the wrong
software for the job, and given that there are still a number of really
important things that postgresql lacks, it should concentrate on those.I
am not against it however for technical reasons, because those things can
alw
Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Jeff Bowden wrote:
So maybe this is a packaging issue. On Debian when I install postgres
it is necessary to do root shit in order to enable non-priveledged users
to create and destroy databases. My understanding has alwasy been that
these operat
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Jeff Bowden wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >Jeff Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>Still, the main problem I, and I suspect others, would like to solve is
> >>installation/configuration. For my app I don't want the user to have to
> >>understand anything about
Jeff Bowden wrote:
For ease of configuration and other reasons, I would like for my
single-user GUI app to be able to use postgresql in-process as a library
accessing a database created in the users home directory. I think I
could possibly get what I want by launching a captive copy of postmast
10 matches
Mail list logo
