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

Re: SpreadFirefox

From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SpreadFirefox
Date: 2004-10-21 02:08:39
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
In the last exciting episode, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote:
>>If Firefox decided to drop the XML configuration storage approach in
>>favor of using a (perhaps quasi-embedded, in the way it _could_ be
>>done) PostgreSQL instance, that would be a good excuse.

> IMHO that is a bad use for PostgreSQL and a better use for
> SQLite. PostgreSQL is a farily heavy process to be a book mark
> manager.

XUL + XML strikes me as being a pretty "heavyweight process" for use
in managing bookmarks, so I don't see this being a big issue.  

We don't know what would happen, in the end, after tuning took place.

The point would be that if it turned out OK, this would be an argument
in favor of having the DB instance be "central," and throw more
applications onto it so that more costs would get shared.  _That_
wouldn't be a benefit likely with SQLite...
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || '';
"We're  born with a  number  of  powerful instincts,  which are  found
across all cultures.   Chief amongst these are  a dislike of snakes, a
fear of falling, and a hatred of popup windows" -- Vlatko Juric-Kokic

In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Thomas HallgrenDate: 2004-10-22 08:22:22
Subject: Re: SpreadFirefox
Previous:From: Chris BrowneDate: 2004-10-20 14:49:17
Subject: Re: Linux Journal Article.

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