Re: Postgres as In-Memory Database?

Dear Bricklen and Andrew

2013/11/19 bricklen <bricklen(at)gmail(dot)com>

> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > I don't think there's any evidence that the Postgres developers ignore
>> > useful optimisations. What you're arguing is that the optimisation
>> > you have in mind isn't covered.
>>
>> No; my point is that I - and others like Stonebraker, Oracle and SAP etc.
>> - see room for optimization because assumptions about HW changed. To me,
>> that should be enough evidence to start thinking about enhancements.
>>
>
>
> You must not read the -hackers list often enough, there are regularly long
> discussions about changing settings and adding features to take into
> account new hardware capabilities.
> If you feel so strongly that the core developers are not scratching your
> itch, donate some code or money to fund they feature you feel are missing.
>

I usually discuss things - with core devs and devs and others - before I
code.
And coding was what's obviously needed regarding
the file_fixed_length_record_fdw.
I'm reading -hackers often and don't get a single valuable hit when
searching for "in-memory" in postgres-* lists.
So, may we come back on track?