X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68BA2D1B563
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:53:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 61410-03
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:52:48 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C769D1E1A7
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:52:44 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAGEql19026173;
	Sun, 16 Nov 2003 09:52:47 -0500 (EST)
To: ow <oneway_111@yahoo.com>
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck@yahoo.com>, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Programatically switching database 
In-reply-to: <20031116051842.57962.qmail@web21404.mail.yahoo.com> 
References: <20031116051842.57962.qmail@web21404.mail.yahoo.com>
Comments: In-reply-to ow <oneway_111@yahoo.com>
	message dated "Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:18:42 -0800"
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 09:52:47 -0500
Message-ID: <26172.1068994367@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org
X-Archive-Number: 200311/184
X-Sequence-Number: 15999

ow <oneway_111@yahoo.com> writes:
> My concern though ... wouldn't pgSql server collapse when faced with
> transaction spawning across 100M+ records?

No.  You're extrapolating from Oracle-specific assumptions again.

			regards, tom lane