| From: | Richard Broersma <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tony McC <afmcc(at)btinternet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: New server to improve performance on our large and busy DB - advice? (v2) |
| Date: | 2010-01-15 16:20:26 |
| Message-ID: | 396486431001150820i7d56ff0an7b95e25e9d555cea@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Tony McC <afmcc(at)btinternet(dot)com> wrote:
>> most stable platform for that RDBMS. For Oracle, that's HP-UX (but 10
>> years ago, it was Solaris). For PostgreSQL, it's Linux.
>
> I am interested in this response and am wondering if this is just
> Dave's opinion or some sort of official PostgreSQL policy.
>I really don't want to start a Linux vs
> FreeBSD flame war (I like Linux and use that too, though not for
> database use), I am just intrigued by the claim that Linux is somehow
> the natural OS for running PostgreSQL.
I would wager that this response is a tad flame-bait-"ish".
--
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.
Visit the Los Angeles PostgreSQL Users Group (LAPUG)
http://pugs.postgresql.org/lapug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-01-15 16:23:02 | Re: New server to improve performance on our large and busy DB - advice? (v2) |
| Previous Message | Tony McC | 2010-01-15 16:10:40 | Re: New server to improve performance on our large and busy DB - advice? (v2) |