On 10/14/03 11:31 PM, "James Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There is some abstraction in Postgres and the database is well-written, but > it isn't written in a manner that makes it easy to swap out operating system > or API models. It is written to be portable at all levels. A database > kernel isn't necessarily required to be portable at the very lowest level, > but it is vastly more optimizable because you aren't forced into a narrow > set of choices for interfacing with the operating system.
Just to clarify, my post wasn't really to say that we should run out and make Postgres use a database kernel type internal model tomorrow. The point of all that was that Oracle does things that way for a very good reason and that there can be benefits that may not be immediately obvious. It is really one of those emergent "needs" when a database engine gets to a certain level of sophistication. For smaller and simpler databases, you don't really need it and the effort isn't justified. At some point, you cross a threshold where not only does it become justified but it becomes a wise idea or not having it will start to punish you in a number of different ways. I personally think that Postgres is sitting on the cusp of "its a wise idea", and that it is something worth thinking about in the future. Cheers, -James Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
