| From: | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Flavio Henrique Araque Gurgel <flavio(at)4linux(dot)com(dot)br>, Fabrix <fabrixio1(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Scalability in postgres |
| Date: | 2009-05-29 12:13:51 |
| Message-ID: | 2f4958ff0905290513tca41477i1d6efb88631ca6e8@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
2009/5/29 Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> if it is implemented somewhere else better, shouldn't that make it
>> obvious that postgresql should solve it internally ? It is really
>> annoying to hear all the time that you should add additional path of
>> execution to already complex stack, and rely on more code to handle
>> something (poolers).
>
> OTOH, you're always free to submit a patch.
:P
I thought that's where the difference is between postgresql and oracle
mostly, ability to handle more transactions and better scalability .
--
GJ
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-05-29 12:37:54 | Re: Scalability in postgres |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-05-29 12:11:10 | Re: Scalability in postgres |