Hope Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We know that PostgreSQL is famous for its good modularity, which allows
> users to select which part they need. It also allow developers to easily
> replace one part without affecting other parts. However, as I know, most
> database engine, like MySQL, has such modularity: layered architecture and
> small pieces of functionalities. Actually, it's a rule recognized by lots of
> software design. Why is only PostgreSQL entitled "good modularity"?
Uh, does anyone authoritative describe it that way? I think we can
legitimately claim that Postgres is pretty extensible, but as for
modularity I'm not sure that it's got any great claim to fame.
To me modularity connotes an emphasis on dividing the system into
pieces separated by carefully-defined, small-footprint interfaces,
and we have not done spectacularly well on that score.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
