Re: Announcing Veil

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>, veil-general(at)pgfoundry(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Announcing Veil
Date: 2005-10-07 04:14:39
Message-ID: 1128658479.23118.37.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 2005-06-10 at 23:56 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> True, but are people going to recompile PostgreSQL to use this feature?
> Seems they would have to.

They would need to recompile PostgreSQL to use more than the default
number of user-defined LWLocks, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

-Neil

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Premsun Choltanwanich 2005-10-07 04:27:38 How to delete Large Object from Database?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-10-07 04:10:25 Re: Announcing Veil