[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hideyuki Kawashima) wrote:
> Joshua,
> I appreciate your quick & informative reply. And, I also really
> appreciate your kind comments. Since I have joined this ML 3 hours
> ago, I tried to be polite and slightly nervous. But I was relieved
> by your message.

Your idea sounds interesting; there is likely to be a considerable
resistance to mechanisms, however, that would be likely to make
PostgreSQL less robust.

Be aware, also, that in a public forum like this, people are sometimes
less gentle than Joshua.

The fundamental trouble with this mechanism is that a power outage can
instantly turn a database into crud.

One may try to mitigate that problem by supporting the memory device
with multiple power supplies *and* multiple UPSes.

But there is a not-inconsiderable risk that people will fail to read
warnings, deploy databases in a way that leaves them exposed to total
loss, and then lay blame at this community's feet.  I'm sure you can
understand why the community might resist that...
output = reverse("moc.liamg" "@" "enworbbc")
Babbage's  Rule: "No  man's  cipher  is worth  looking  at unless  the
inventor has himself solved a very difficult cipher" (The Codebreakers
by Kahn, 2nd ed, pg 765)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to