On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Jonah H. Harris <jonah.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 9:42 PM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 08:46:15PM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Alvaro Herrera >>> <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: >>> >> Oracle on the other hand stores the lock information directly in >>> >> the data block that is locked, thus the number of locks does not >>> >> affect system performance (in terms of managing them). >>> >> >>> >> I couldn't find any description on which strategy PG applies. >>> > >>> > None of the above. We're smarter than everyone else. >>> >>> Which is why Oracle's locks are more scalable than PG's? >> >> You've been talking about your super-secret test which you allege, >> quite implausibly, I might add, to have Oracle (8i, even!) blowing >> PostgreSQL's doors off for weeks now. >> >> Put up, or shut up. > > Same to the standard PG B.S. responses such as, "None of the above. > We're smarter than everyone else." When's the last time Alvaro used > or tuned Oracle? Does he have a clue about how Oracle locks scale? > Stop complaining.
The difference is HE put forth an opinion about the pg developers being smarter, but you put forth what seems like a statement of fact with no evidence to back it up. One is quite subjective and open for debate on both sides, and often to good effect. The other is a statement of fact regarding scalability in apparently all usage circumstances, since it wasn't in any way clarified if you were talking about a narrow usage case or all of the possible and / or probably ones. Having dealt with cust service for a few commercial dbs, I can safely say I get way better service from way smarter people when I have a problem. And I don't have a lot of problems. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
