Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS

erik(at)myemma(dot)com (Erik Jones) writes:
> On May 24, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Chris Browne wrote:
>> Jan Wieck had a proposal to a similar effect, namely to give some way
>> to get one connection to duplicate the state of another one.
>>
>> This would permit doing a neat parallel decomposition of pg_dump: you
>> could do a 4-way parallelization of it that would function something
>> like the following [elided]:
>
> Interesting. That's actually pretty close to the reindexing strategy/
> script that I use and I've been planning on extending it to a vacuum
> strategy. So, I will add my support into someone building this kind
> of support into pg_dump/restore.

Well, I think that particular idea is dead for 8.3, as there wasn't
agreement that there were enough relevant use-cases.

If discussion gets bombarded with "yes, yes, that's useful for me
too!" responses the next time it gets proposed, then that will
increase the chances of acceptance.

We seem to be suffering, as the community, and patch queue, grows,
from the problem that features that are regarded as being useful only
to small sets of users are seeing greater reluctance for acceptance.
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "acm.org")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/linuxxian.html
"Is your pencil Y2K certified? Do you know the possible effects if it
isn't?"