pgaddict

19 ms·

181.
by pgaddict 9y ago
Please don't mess with the seq_page_cost. It's considered a reference value, so leave it set to 1.0 and tweak the other values.
182.
by pgaddict 9y ago
It sounds simple until you actually try doing that. The thing is, reducing the costing to these two parameters is a significantly simplified model of what happens in practice. So you can't just run some I/O benchmark to measure ra
183.
by pgaddict 9y ago
Ummm, so first you state that "PC is too damn crufty and complicated" and then suggest that going full-Stallman would improve that, when RMS is using X60, which is essentially a regular x86 laptop? Granted, it doesn't have th
184.
by pgaddict 9y ago
That's great you have a design for something much more secure, but what are you actually using at the moment? I agree Qubes (or other similar systems) are imperfect - partly due to software bugs, partly due to hardware vulnerabilities.
185.
by pgaddict 9y ago
So what if he asked friends/associates who are lawyers for a quick feedback, or even paid the lawyers for limited amount of time? When a lawyer gives you a quick assessment and it's "This is very risky," how likely is it
186.
by pgaddict 9y ago
> DBAs must know how replication works, as RDBMSs are not toys. It's naive to think that replication in other RDBMs itjustworks! - see, for example, the replication bug that caused slave corruption to the famous transportation compa
187.
by pgaddict 9y ago
Sure you can. TL works for Crunchy Data [ https://www.crunchydata.com/ ] and I suppose he gets involved in solving customer issues.
188.
by pgaddict 9y ago
It's possible, but FWDs are not really a viable solution for "pluggable storage". It also limits what the planner/optimizer can do, and (obviously) it introduces latency because there's network communications. FWD a
189.
by pgaddict 9y ago
> Not being sarcastic: this type of article always seems to be written with an audience of "people who love to pick a side and hate the other side, but haven't picked a side yet". > The article picks an extreme example
190.
by pgaddict 9y ago
Well, yeah. Sorry to hear that your interactions with the community was not great. My experience is quite different - perhaps I was lucky, or maybe it's because I started contributing to the project, not sure. But I stuck with PostgreS
191.
by pgaddict 9y ago
I don't want to be bashing MySQL, but this nicely illustrates the project's approach to engineering - if there's an issue, put it into the docs as a known limitation. Furthermore, MySQL manual actually has "Restrictions
192.
by pgaddict 9y ago
Well, it was not really meant entirely seriously, of course. I can't speak for other devs contributing to the project, but I think the mailing list is a great way to do this. Ultimately, what you want is a simple way to track informati
193.
by pgaddict 9y ago
I wasn't around back then, but AFAIK it improved over time.
194.
by pgaddict 9y ago
I hear cloning is a thing ;-)
195.
by pgaddict 9y ago
On a more serious note, what makes Postgres so reliable is a number of things. For example: * careful patch review process - Sometimes it's a bit grueling, and it takes time to get stuff in, but it's extremely valuable. Not only f
196.
by pgaddict 9y ago
FWIW we're not "DBA-as-a-service company". It's part of the job, but we do all sorts of stuff (support, consulting, trainings, custom development, ...)
197.
by pgaddict 9y ago
Fix bugs, don't track them.
198.
by pgaddict 9y ago
FWIW that's a list of "open items" for PostgreSQL 10 release. So it's not really a "global" authoritative list of open issues, but something the project uses to make sure we deal with all known issues in the de
199.
by pgaddict 9y ago
Sure there are ways to affect the planner. For example one of the expensive steps is exploring the possible join tree - deciding in what order the tables will be joined (and then using which join algorithm). That's inherently exponenti
200.
by pgaddict 9y ago
Thanks, I'm happy it got into PG10 too. Just to make it very clear - the current implementation is fairly simple, and may not be smart enough to deal with more complicated dependencies between columns. Hopefully that will be improved i
201.
by pgaddict 9y ago
Yes, but partitioning also has a number of limitations that may be quite undesirable. Like inability to create UNIQUE constraints or primary keys, for example.
202.
by pgaddict 9y ago
> As I understand it you're saying that it's impossible or hard to have large parts of functionality in a standard compliant implementation. I think that you could have extension features on top of standard, allowing users to u
203.
by pgaddict 9y ago
Your preferences are one thing, your patches or having a say into the development is a very different thing. The standards conformance is not a goal on it's own. The primary goal of the developers is to serve the users, particularly th
204.
by pgaddict 9y ago
I don't see why would that make the original response wrong?
205.
by pgaddict 9y ago
The main problem here is that the description you're referring to was not updated. That's not great, of course, but bashing PostgreSQL standards conformance merely based on a single high-level description is not cool either. Let m
206.
by pgaddict 9y ago
Take this as a positive thing. A large number of talented engineers are no longer trapped in Oracle.
207.
by pgaddict 9y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "adding new Postgres instances." Postgres is not a distributed database, at least not on it's own. There are ways to scale using e.g. hot standbys (streaming replicas for read-only queries)
208.
by pgaddict 9y ago
Firstly, I'm not a native speaker and I don't dare to judge how consistently is English used in politics. But once again, I claim that making conclusions merely based on "language similarity" or something like that is a
209.
by pgaddict 9y ago
The primary place where the policies should be discussed is the company. He got fired for sharing his opinions. I don't see how is that supporting open discussion of the topic?
210.
by pgaddict 9y ago
The fact that group X is known to use certain tactic does not mean Y is using it too. In any case, screaming "WE'RE NOT EVEN DISCUSSING THAT!" and calling for getting the person fired is hardly a proper response. What I'

More ›