From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
Cc: | Richard Troy <rtroy(at)ScienceTools(dot)com>, Mark Walker <furface(at)omnicode(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Any Plans for cross database queries on the same server? |
Date: | 2007-01-31 05:04:37 |
Message-ID: | 15710.1170219877@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 04:43:14PM -0800, Richard Troy wrote:
>> ... different in my opinion if only Unix didn't have this asenine view
>> that the choice between a memory management strategy that kills
>> random processes and turning that off and accepting that your system
>> hangs is a reasonable choice and that spending a measily % of
>> performance in overhead to eliminate the problem is out of the
>> question. Asenine, I tell you.
> The OOM killer in Linux is, indeed, asinine.
Well, it probably has some use for desktop systems, or would if it could
distinguish essential from inessential processes. But please Richard:
Linux is not Unix, it's merely one implementation of a Unix-ish system.
You are tarring *BSD, Solaris, HPUX, and a bunch of others with a
failing that is not theirs.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Patrick | 2007-01-31 05:11:35 | Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 9.0 |
Previous Message | Scott Ribe | 2007-01-31 04:58:12 | Re: PostgreSQL data loss |