"Mattew T. O'Connor" wrote: > > > My big problem with putting the cache outside of the database is that it is > > now incumbent on the applications programmer to write a cache. A database > > should manage the data, the application should handle how the data is > > presented. Forcing the application to implement a cache feels wrong. > > I believe someone suggested a possible solution that was in the pg client > using NOTICE and triggers. The argument given against it, was that > it would not be ACID compliant. I say, who cares. I would think that the > "select cachable" would only be allowed for simple selects, it would not be > used for select for update or anything else. Anytime you are given the > result of a simple select, you are not guaranteed that the data won't change > underneath you.
Not true, if you begin a transaction, you can be isolated of changes made to the database. >The primary use that you have suggested is for web sites, > and they certainly won't mind of the cache is 0.3seconds out of date. Again, if they don't care about accuracy, then they will use MySQL. PostgreSQL is a far better system. Making PostgreSQL less accurate, less "correct" takes away, IMHO, the very reasons to use it. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
