Stephen Cook wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
I would guess they're referring to the ability to "pin" a table into
memory, so that it always stays in the cache regardless of what else
the database is doing. There is a narrow use-case where this can be
very useful, but it can also be a very danger
Magnus Hagander wrote:
I would guess they're referring to the ability to "pin" a table into
memory, so that it always stays in the cache regardless of what else the
database is doing. There is a narrow use-case where this can be very
useful, but it can also be a very dangerous tool (hint: if yo
Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
Slony is good as long as there are no DDLs issued. And its easy to
shoot oneself in the foot if one is not careful (some time ago I have
lost all the triggers while upgrading from 8.1 to 8.2; it was my fault
since I did pg_dump -s on a slave database, not on the master...).
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 13:56 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I don't think these people are comparing to other opensource ones...
> They're comparing to the commercial ones (at least in this case)
Yes, that's definitely the case. And that can actually be taken as a
compliment to the already attain
Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
On Feb 13, 2008 10:49 AM, Csaba Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=48339
The interesting part is where somebody asks why NOT use postgres, and
it's answers could give some additional hints to those interested on
what peop
Csaba Nagy wrote:
http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=48339
The interesting part is where somebody asks why NOT use postgres, and
it's answers could give some additional hints to those interested on
what people find missing from postgres to adopt it.
Just to summarize some of
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 13:39 +0100, Csaba Nagy wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 13:29 +0100, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> > > * no direct table cache control;
> >
> > Could you elaborate more on this one?
>
OK, re-reading what I just wrote makes me think it was not clear enough:
I think they mean you ca
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 13:29 +0100, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> > * no direct table cache control;
>
> Could you elaborate more on this one?
Well, I was just summarizing what other people wrote :-)
But I guess they refer to table level control of how much cache memory
to use. I think there are DBMSs
On Feb 13, 2008 10:49 AM, Csaba Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=48339
>
> The interesting part is where somebody asks why NOT use postgres, and
> it's answers could give some additional hints to those interested on
> what people find missing
http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=48339
The interesting part is where somebody asks why NOT use postgres, and
it's answers could give some additional hints to those interested on
what people find missing from postgres to adopt it.
Just to summarize some of the answers:
* majo
10 matches
Mail list logo
