On 10 Feb 2011, at 9:01, Alessandro Candini wrote: > I have installed 4 different instances of postgresql-9.0.2 on the same machine, on ports 5433, 5434, 5435, 5436. I do hope you intend to put those databases on different machines eventually, or some such? Otherwise you probably didn't gain anything by splitting your database up like that - you've just reduced the available resources on that single machine. > Why I have to do something tricky like this is long too explain... It would help to know what you're trying to achieve by splitting your database up like this. We don't need the full story, just a summary is fine; Maybe this is some experimental setup that's more related to multi-threading than to the actual database design? Maybe management smoked something outlandish and put you up with this? Maybe this is a macroscopic attempt to table partitioning? > Then I have developed a C function using libpq which creates 4 threads, each one which query a 1/4 of the db. After that I merge the results in one single response. > > My function works fine, but I need to include it inside a postgresql instance in order to launch it as a normal SQL query (SELECT myfunc(...);). > I have read the documentation here http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/xfunc-sql.html#XFUNC-SQL-FUNCTIONS-RETURNING-SET, but I'm pretty confuse and I don't know if this is the right way to accomplish my goal. What are you confused about? That's a chapter about set-returning functions written in SQL - perhaps you're looking for information about set-returning functions from an external library like yours? Perhaps you're looking for: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/interactive/xfunc-c.html You say you don't know if this is the right way to accomplish your goal - which is...? > Have you got any ideas or suggestions? As others have suggested, you should probably have a look at table-partitioning, possibly in combination with tablespaces if you want to divide your database among multiple disks/filesystems. Putting them in different servers on the same hardware is probably not going to be a very good solution. As you've already found out, it makes querying the data silly difficult. But, we don't know the reason you're doing that of course. Alban Hertroys -- If you can't see the forest for the trees, cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest. !DSPAM:737,4d567a3611733933816998! -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
