| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Contrib -- PostgreSQL shared variables |
| Date: | 2004-08-29 16:05:55 |
| Message-ID: | 4131FEE3.8070709@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark wrote:
>I expect to see substantial resistance to incorporating such a feature. One
>argument will be that he should simply use a separate system for such data.
>For example, memcached would be much faster and more scalable than
>communicating via postgres.
>
>
Postgres should do what postgres is good at IMNSHO. Small is beautiful.
>The only disadvantage to using something like memcached would be that you
>couldn't transparently use values from there inside your queries. You would
>have to fetch them and then pass them as parameters to postgres.
>
>
Could you not overcome that using server-side functions, in, say, C or
plperlu? In fact I suspect you could implement this whole scheme using
memcached (which looks quite cool and exactly made for this) plus a very
small amount of plperlu glue.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-29 16:55:32 | Re: Error in compiling "pgcrypto" module in Win32 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-29 15:07:53 | Re: [BUGS] server crash in very big transaction [postgresql |