A Dijous, 6 de setembre de 2012 00:30:53, Josh Berkus va escriure: > > In general I think the selling point for such a feature would be "no > > administrative hassles", and I believe that has to go not only for the > > end-user experience but also for the application-developer experience. > > If you have to manage checkpointing and vacuuming in the application, > > you're probably soon going to look for another database. > > Well, don't discount the development/testing case. If you do agile or > TDD (a lot of people do), you often have a workload which looks like: > > 1) Start framework > 2) Start database > 3) Load database with test data > 4) Run tests > 5) Print results > 6) Shut down database > > In a case like that, you can live without checkpointing, even; the > database is ephemeral. > > In other words, let's make this a feature and document it for use in > testing, and that it's not really usable for production embedded apps yet.
+1. Some projects such as tryton would benefit from this feature. -- Albert Cervera i Areny http://www.NaN-tic.com Tel: +34 93 553 18 03 http://twitter.com/albertnan http://www.nan-tic.com/blog -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
