On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 13:52 -0500, Jeff wrote:
[snip]
> You'd have to have separate shared buffers for each which would eat
> away from the filesystem cache. Not to mention overhead of having
> many more PG's running (in terms of just processes htat need to be
> managed and memory used by each).
True. Those are the costs.
> You'd also have to have the users
> connect to PG on an alternate port and that may irritate some.
>
You can also use unix local domain sockets. I'm not sure if that gains
much, but most web hosts don't allow tcp/ip connections anyway.
> In a web hosting (multi-user) environment it may make more sense. but
> you could also just give each user his own db and only allow sameuser
> access to each db via pg_hba.conf.
>
I would like to add that there are risks associated with doing that. If
one user fills up the disk (like with an infinite loop in a web app)
than that affects all database users, since it's running as the
"postgres" user. No more commits can happen at all.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
