Re: How ugly would this be? (ALTER DATABASE)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: How ugly would this be? (ALTER DATABASE)
Date: 2014-10-25 03:19:04
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaUyh=mt0N_8kFptQ8xofY+RFQm34wWpL45Hh__irn60Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> ISTM that the multiple-databases-per-backend issue is the huge hang-up here.
> Maybe there's some way that could be hacked around if you're just
> re-jiggering a bunch of catalog stuff (assuming you lock users out of both
> databases while you're doing that), but if you were going to go to that
> extent perhaps it'd be better to just support cross-database access in a
> single backend...

Good luck with that. It's probably as hard or harder than making the
backend multi-threaded, which is itself harder than any project a
reasonable person will undertake any time in the forseeable future.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ali Akbar 2014-10-25 03:29:59 Re: Function array_agg(array)
Previous Message Brightwell, Adam 2014-10-25 02:26:23 Re: security barrier INSERT