Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Time to start the PR machine

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>,PostgreSQL advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Time to start the PR machine
Date: 2005-10-01 01:14:16
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 04:13:45PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 13:31, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Shared Row Locking: PostgreSQL's "better than row-level
> > locking" has been improved further through the addition of
> > shared row locks for foreign keys.  Shared locks will improve
> > insert and update performance on some OLTP applications
> > 			         ^^^^
> > 
> > The word "some" sounds like it is a minority of OLTP applications.
> > In general any moderately used OLTP app will benifit from this yes?
> > 
> > many, most, or just say performance on OLTP applications.
> well, it will really only help on those systems that were stressing out
> our current design (and thats really hardware dependent too) so maybe
> "busy", "heavy","high load" or just  "on OLTP applications". 

It will help applications that use foreign keys extensively.  Do "most
OLTP apps" do that?  I guess any reasonably implemented app should.

Alvaro Herrera        
Thou shalt check the array bounds of all strings (indeed, all arrays), for
surely where thou typest "foo" someone someday shall type
"supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" (5th Commandment for C programmers)

In response to


pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Leonard SoetedjoDate: 2005-10-01 02:58:44
Subject: Re: XA
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2005-09-30 21:38:33
Subject: Re: PR: release text updated

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group