On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > There are a lot of other things we desperately need to spend time > on that would not amount to re-engineering large quantities of OS-level > code. Given that most Unixen have perfectly respectable disk management > subsystems, we prefer to tune our code to make use of that stuff, rather > than follow the "conventional wisdom" that databases need to bypass it. > ... > Oracle can afford to do that sort of thing because they have umpteen > thousand developers available. Postgres does not.
Well, Oracle also started out, a long long time ago, on systems without unified buffer cache and so on, and so they *had* to write this stuff because otherwise data would not be cached. So Oracle can also afford to maintain it now because the code already exists. cjs -- Curt Sampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
