[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") http://linuxdatabases.info/info/internet.html 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