From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | ow <oneway_111(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Are we losing momentum? |
Date: | 2003-04-15 20:27:07 |
Message-ID: | 1050438427.368.37.camel@tokyo |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Tue, 2003-04-15 at 15:35, ow wrote:
> Some databases contain lots of data, e.g. dbs that contain historical
> data. No one wants to have one HUGE db that runs all company's apps,
> takes hours (if not days) to recover and when this huge db goes down
> none of the apps is available.
Are you talking about queries between databases on the same postmaster
(i.e. running under the same PostgreSQL installation), or queries
between postmasters running on different systems? If the former, I don't
see how putting your data into multiple schemas in a single database is
significantly less reliable than putting it into multiple databases.
Cheers,
Neil
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2003-04-15 20:45:29 | Re: Tech Docs and Consultants |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2003-04-15 20:21:04 | Re: Tech Docs and Consultants |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2003-04-15 20:31:18 | Re: Upgrade to Red Hat Linux 9 broke PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Network Administrator | 2003-04-15 20:03:00 | Re: Upgrade to Red Hat Linux 9 broke PostgreSQL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2003-04-15 20:31:18 | Re: Upgrade to Red Hat Linux 9 broke PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Network Administrator | 2003-04-15 20:03:00 | Re: Upgrade to Red Hat Linux 9 broke PostgreSQL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-04-15 21:28:15 | Re: IPv6 address parsing for inet/cidr types (take II) |
Previous Message | ow | 2003-04-15 19:35:18 | Re: Are we losing momentum? |