From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | AW: Performance (was: The New Slashdot Setup (includes MySql server)) |
Date: | 2000-05-24 14:42:34 |
Message-ID: | 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C604AF7D98@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> How about:
>
> 1. alter_rename_table = no
>
> The syntax in PostgreSQL is ALTER TABLE x RENAME TO y;
Other db's seem to use "rename {table|index|view|database} a to b"
>
> 2. atomic_updates = no
>
> Huh? Besides being paranoid about fsync()'ing transactions how is
> a transaction based MVCC not atomic with respect to updates?
>
> 3. automatic_rowid = no
>
> The description simply says Automatic rowid. Does this apply to
> query result sets or to the underlying relation? If the latter,
> PostgreSQL has, of course, an OID for every tuple in the
> database.
I think they mean our ctid. When hiroshi implemented it I suggested
using the keyword "rowid" for ctid access. Imho it is what people are
looking for when using rowid. There was no comment.
> I'm starting to get very tired of this. I don't see why
> PostgreSQL users are obligated to get MySQL tests correct. And
> I'm only 15% through the list...
>
> Bottom line...either the test writers are ignorant or deceptive.
> Either way I won't trust my data with them...
Is this necessary? imho we are talking with someone who tries to
correct things for us.
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-05-24 14:59:01 | Re: setproctitle() |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2000-05-24 14:34:01 | Re: Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql OO Patch |