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 061C9D1B535 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:49:52 +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 68701-03 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:49:24 -0400 (AST) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B1AD1E1A3 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:49:20 -0400 (AST) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by news.hub.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAGFnKNu003702 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:49:20 GMT (envelope-from news@news.hub.org) Received: (from news@localhost) by news.hub.org (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id hAGFSc1a001138 for pgsql-sql@postgresql.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:28:38 GMT From: Christopher Browne X-Newsgroups: comp.databases.postgresql.sql Subject: Re: Programatically switching database Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:22:31 -0500 Organization: cbbrowne Computing Inc Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <20031116051842.57962.qmail@web21404.mail.yahoo.com> <26172.1068994367@sss.pgh.pa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org X-message-flag: Outlook is rather hackable, isn't it? X-Home-Page: http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/ X-Affero: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:T9QERU+o62ammWvd7KrhTDqnqmg= To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200311/185 X-Sequence-Number: 16000 Clinging to sanity, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane) mumbled into her beard: > ow 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. Or from MySQL-specific assumptions :-). It seems reasonable (absent of particular knowledge to the contrary) that the size of a transaction might be _expected_ to be some sort of constraint; it is quite surprising that it isn't, and I don't think that's purely based on the mistake of assuming that the whole world does things exactly like Oracle. -- (format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org") http://cbbrowne.com/info/postgresql.html Rules of the Evil Overlord #89. "After I captures the hero's superweapon, I will not immediately disband my legions and relax my guard because I believe whoever holds the weapon is unstoppable. After all, the hero held the weapon and I took it from him."