Re: Postgres as In-Memory Database?

From: bricklen <bricklen(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Postgres as In-Memory Database?
Date: 2013-11-19 14:32:01
Message-ID: CAGrpgQ-BqZVGMmh0J9yVaUgBxM-=SwuZoPa=71i5vQ8cHv9UKQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stefan Keller 2013-11-19 17:52:37 Re: Postgres as In-Memory Database?
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2013-11-19 14:30:31 Re: Postgres as In-Memory Database?