Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/25/07 12:18, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 12:36:20PM -0400, Chris Browne wrote:
>> We seem to be suffering, as the community, and patch queue, grows,
>> from the problem that features that are regarded as being useful only
>> to small sets of users are seeing greater reluctance for acceptance.
>
> Another way of expressing that regards it as a positive benefit:
> given finite numbers of developers, testers, and patch reviewers, we
> as a community have to make decisions about how big a feature set we
> can realistically support, and the value that contributes to the user
> community. A small potential user community probably means a lower
> estimation of the value of the feature. So features that seem sort
> of boutique are to be regarded at least with scepticism, in order to
> keep the code useful for everyone.

Except that seemingly "boutique" features can be road-blocks to
implementing projects, which means that you never hear from them.

In my case, there are two such road-blocks:
1. transaction failure on statement failure[0], and
2. single-threaded backups[1].

[0] Savepoints are a work-around, but there's a lot of existing code
that would have to be modified. And you need a savepoint for every
INSERT and UPDATE.

[1] Tarballing data directories and saving WAL files works around
that, but a pg_dump file is, in itself, a transactionaly consistent
database. Shipping a bunch of tarballs and WALs to the development
team is much more complicated than a single (or multiple, if that
ever comes to pass) dump file.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGVyP9S9HxQb37XmcRAq0JAJ0btgoWOpaxdedppqwJIKZSaOrtmgCg4Yuu
Lt/72CVBnOPflVgqnK7FgT8=
=KEf8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----