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

From: Albert Cervera i Areny <albert(at)nan-tic(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
Date: 2012-09-08 14:52:35
Message-ID: 201209081652.35529.albert@nan-tic.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

A Dijous, 6 de setembre de 2012 00:30:53, Josh Berkus va escriure:
> > In general I think the selling point for such a feature would be "no
> > administrative hassles", and I believe that has to go not only for the
> > end-user experience but also for the application-developer experience.
> > If you have to manage checkpointing and vacuuming in the application,
> > you're probably soon going to look for another database.
>
> Well, don't discount the development/testing case. If you do agile or
> TDD (a lot of people do), you often have a workload which looks like:
>
> 1) Start framework
> 2) Start database
> 3) Load database with test data
> 4) Run tests
> 5) Print results
> 6) Shut down database
>
> In a case like that, you can live without checkpointing, even; the
> database is ephemeral.
>
> In other words, let's make this a feature and document it for use in
> testing, and that it's not really usable for production embedded apps yet.

+1.

Some projects such as tryton would benefit from this feature.

--
Albert Cervera i Areny
http://www.NaN-tic.com
Tel: +34 93 553 18 03

http://twitter.com/albertnan
http://www.nan-tic.com/blog

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-09-08 15:06:41 Re: build farm machine using <make -j 8> mixed results
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2012-09-08 04:03:11 Re: build farm machine using <make -j 8> mixed results