Afternoon Frank,
I believe what you might wish to look at is a single database with a set of schemas[1] which would separate your data in a logical way. You could have a single connection url and then each individual connection could create a schema (or reuse if you wish), set the search path (first example here [2]) and populate the schema (if needed) within your single database
That would give you your desired isolation but within a simple framework that is PostgreSQL friendly.
John
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:24 PM, frank ernest <doark@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> how would an instance of your program know what to connect to, or which
> previous instance its 'predecessor' was ?> normally, you have ONE database for a given set of applications, and all
> the applications share the same database tables and such.
That's the problem, is there some way to tell pgsql "Go to dir X, open your data base Y and prepare for connections at adress Z and port P"? And could pgsql accept multiple connections on the same address and port? I was thinking of using my pID but that would change and if I used a user created string then if I started only on a single instace of pgsql and pointed it to it's databases the user might get the strings duplicated and that would be no good. I also thought of naming each database with a name generated by using the uuid library but I'm not sure which would be best.If I choose to have multiple servers running on the same machine how would my program start them?> Is each runtime instance of your application to have a new, empty
> database? No data from any other run of the application?No, the dynamically generated content is to be dropped (drop table dynamic_content;) but the rest is to be preserved. The idea is to create a database of a file system but the files contain no data, I only want their metadata and I will add a few additional metadta values to each file.Thanks, David
