From: | Volkan YAZICI <yazicivo(at)ttnet(dot)net(dot)tr> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Preserving Cluster-Wise Data |
Date: | 2006-12-05 18:15:14 |
Message-ID: | 20061205181514.GD1316@alamut |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 05 01:06, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> The data might well be PL and session specific, though. e.g. a perl
> function ref would be both.
>
> I don't know what state we would want to preserve across sessions anyway.
>
> Let's see a use case that a plain user level table wouldn't serve.
For instance, with such a cluster-wise table, PLs will be able to
implement a _SHARED variable easily. And the reason that a plain user
level table wouldn't serve the same functionality is that, it's
database-wide, not cluster-wise... Umm... You look like right. PLs are
also database wide, why bothering with cluster wise stuff.
Sorry for flooding the ml. I thought a central dedicated table would
suit better than a plain table.
Regards.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-05 18:25:15 | Re: old synchronized scan patch |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2006-12-05 18:06:35 | Re: Weak passwords and brute force attacks |