> On 6/24/06, Mark Woodward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I originally suggested a methodology for preserving MVCC and everyone is >> confusing it as update "in place," this isnot what I intended. > > Actually, you should've presented your idea as performing MVCC the way > Firebird does... the idea is basically the same. Doing some research > never hurts... especially with this crowd.
Is it really nessisary make personal comments like this? Lets discuss "ideas" not personalities or people. The whole issue was how to address updates steadily degrading performance. I wanted to brainstorm the issue and find a solution. I tossed out a first guess at an algorithm to start the ball rolling. Was it perfect? No. Was it intended to be? no. It was intended to spark a discussion, get people, first to recognize the problem, and then to think about possible solutions. I find that this, while chaotic, usually finds the best solutions. There are a lot of good and smart people here who understand this process and see it for what it is. Unfortunately, some don't. It isn't about "research," per se, because it is assumed that we all know the various issues involved to some degree. It is about using the collective knowledge of the group and coming up with an answer. Over email, this can sometimes come off badly, and for that I appologize, but imagine, we were sitting at a table in "cambridge brewing company," and we had laptops and pitchers of beer and were discussing the problem. I'm at a stark disadvantage as I use PostgreSQL a lot, but don't have the luxury of being able to work on it in any real depth. I'd really love too. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
