Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 2/7/2007 10:35 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I find the term "logical proof of it's correctness" too restrictive.  It
> > sounds like some formal academic process that really doesn't work well
> > for us.
> Thank you.
> > Also, I saw the trigger patch with no explaination of why it was
> > important or who would use it --- that also isn't going to fly well.
> You didn't respond to my explanation how the current Slony 
> implementation could improve and evolve using it. Are you missing 
> something? I am discussing this very issue with our own QA department, 
> and thus far, I think I have a majority of "would use a pg_trigger 
> backpatched PostgreSQL" vs. "No, I prefer a system that knows exactly 
> how it corrupted my system catalog".

No, I _now_ understand the use case, but when the patch was posted, the
use case was missing.  I would like to see a repost with the patch, and
a description of its use so we can all move forward on that.

> > As far as TOAST, there is no question in my mind that TOAST development
> > would happen the same way today as it did when we did it in 2001 --- we
> > have a problem, how can we fix it.
> Looking at what did happen back then and what happens in this case, I do 
> see a difference. There were concerns about the compression algorithm 
> used ... it still is today what was the first incarnation and nobody 
> ever bothered to even investigate if there could possibly be any better 
> thing. Do you think lzcompress is the best we can come up with? I don't! 
> So why is it still the thing used? Maybe it is good enough?

It is simple/stupid enough, I would say, and the compression space is a
mine-field of patents.

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to