Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:09:49 -0500
From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
Subject: Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations
In-reply-to: <E1GtrB8-0005rw-Iu@elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Mail-followup-to: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Message-id: <20061211200947.GK16692@mathom.us>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-disposition: inline
References: <20061211021847.GE16692@mathom.us>
	<8a0c7af10612110305u305124b2v3d63491b5f57a86b@mail.gmail.com>
	<87u002mv49.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com>
	<8a0c7af10612110531sbb019ck259fb16d131fdb50@mail.gmail.com>
	<60psaq5t94.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>
	<E1GtolA-0008Fk-4R@elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
	<20061211173105.GH16692@mathom.us>
	<E1Gtplp-0004Ka-GM@elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
	<20061211184726.GI16692@mathom.us>
	<E1GtrB8-0005rw-Iu@elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 02:51:09PM -0500, Ron wrote:
>Let's support getting definitive evidence.

Since nobody opposed the concept of contrary evidence, I don't suppose 
you're fighting an uphill battle on that particular point.

It's fine to get preachy about supporting intellectual curiosity, but do 
remember that it's a waste of everyone's (limited) time to give equal 
time to all theories. If someone comes to you with an idea for a 
perpetual motion machine your effort is probably better spent on 
something other than helping him build it, regardless of whether that 
somehow seems unfair. (Now if he brings a working model, that's a 
different story...) Heck, even building a bunch of non-working perpetual 
motion machines as a demonstration is a waste of time, because it's 
always easy to say "well, if you had just...".  That's precisely why the 
person bringing the extraordinary claim is also expected to bring the 
proof, rather than expecting that everyone else prove the status quo.

Mike Stone