From: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Keith Bottner <kbottner(at)comcast(dot)net> |
Cc: | "'Alex J(dot) Avriette'" <alex(at)posixnap(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RFC: Very large scale postgres support |
Date: | 2004-02-09 15:53:34 |
Message-ID: | 4027ACFE.7010604@pse-consulting.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Keith Bottner wrote:
>Alex,
>
>I agree that this is something that is worth spending time on. This
>resembles the Oracle RAC (Real Application Cluster). While other people may
>feel that the amount of data is unreasonable I have a similar problem that
>will only be solved using such a solution.
>
>In regards to how your database is designed? Who cares? This is an RFC for a
>general discussion on how to design this level of functionality into
>Postgres.
>
IMHO a general discussion isn't too helpful, you might be discussing
stuff that's never needed for PostgreSQL. Different database systems
give different solutions to the same problem, as you might see from e.g.
table partition discussions, which where initiated by Oracle-originating
people.
There still might be weaknesses in pgsql, but to identify them, *real*
issues need to be discussed. This is necessary to avoid major
hardware/software dbms efforts that might well be replaced by
organizational/app level tools.
Regards,
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-09 16:26:43 | Re: [HACKERS] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint |
Previous Message | Alex J. Avriette | 2004-02-09 15:37:55 | Re: RFC: Security documentation |