| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)copelandconsulting(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgresql and multithreading |
| Date: | 2002-10-18 14:28:38 |
| Message-ID: | 17578.1034951318@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Copeland <greg(at)copelandconsulting(dot)net> writes:
> On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 22:20, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Simple: respond to 'em all with a one-line answer: "convince us why we
>> should use it". The burden of proof always seems to fall on the wrong
>> end in these discussions.
> ... Now, it seems, that
> people don't want to answer questions at all as it's bothering the
> developers.
Not at all. But rehashing issues that have been talked out repeatedly
is starting to bug some of us ;-). Perhaps the correct "standard
answer" is more like "this has been discussed before, please read the
list archives".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2002-10-18 15:34:17 | ECPG and bison |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-18 14:00:50 | Re: Analysis of ganged WAL writes |