| From: | pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com |
|---|---|
| To: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com, "Mark Kirkwood" <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Frequently updated tables |
| Date: | 2004-06-09 15:18:36 |
| Message-ID: | 32561.64.119.142.34.1086794316.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> I love PG, I've been using it since version 6x, and it has gotten
>> fantastic over the years, and in many cases, I would choose it over
>> Oracle, but for systems that need frequent updates, I have a lot of
>> concerns.
>
> ...that's the price you pay for concurrency man...
I think that's a cop-out. Other databases can handle this case fine and
they have MVCC.
Are we not "open source" "free software" proponents? Isn't one of our
motivations that we can do it better?
This *is* a problem with PostgreSQL, and it *is* a concern for a
reasonable number of potential deployments.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-06-09 15:23:40 | Re: simple_heap_update: tuple concurrently updated -- during INSERT |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-06-09 15:16:02 | Re: thread safety tests |