From: | pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com |
---|---|
To: | "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Extended customizing, SQL functions, |
Date: | 2004-05-29 18:50:13 |
Message-ID: | 16845.24.91.171.78.1085856613.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com writes:
>
>> Having internal PostgreSQL variables that are not present on disk, or
>> maybe, variables that are mirrored on disk may be good.
>
> I don't think there's anything wrong with your idea, and there are
> numerous
> good solutions that implement it already. But what makes you think this
> belongs in Postgres?
>
> There are plenty of memory and disk based shared databases that are
> non-transactional and non-relational and meant for storing just this kind
> of
> non-relational data. Some are much faster than postgres for simple
> non-concurrent one-record lookups and updates like this.
>
> Use the right tool for the job. Don't try to make one tool do everything,
> especially something that's anathema to its basic design.
I agree completely with one caveat, when the best tool for the job lacks a
feature what do you do?
>
> --
> greg
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2004-05-29 18:59:22 | Re: Win32, PITR, nested transactions, tablespaces |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-05-29 18:45:28 | Re: dynamic_library_path on Win32 |