Re: Any Plans for cross database queries on the same server?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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