On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:49:04 +, "John P."
wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:22:04 -0500, "D'Arcy J.M. Cain"
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:56:12 +
>> "John P." wrote:
>>> Sorry but its not really an option for me with PostgreSQL. Thanks
> anyway.
>>
>> Why? It's your best option. An
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:22:04 -0500, "D'Arcy J.M. Cain"
wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:56:12 +
> "John P." wrote:
>> Sorry but its not really an option for me with PostgreSQL. Thanks
anyway.
>
> Why? It's your best option. Any other solutions that you can't use
> before people give you mor
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:56:12 +
"John P." wrote:
> Sorry but its not really an option for me with PostgreSQL. Thanks anyway.
Why? It's your best option. Any other solutions that you can't use
before people give you more suggestions?
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain | Democracy is three wolves
Sorry but its not really an option for me with PostgreSQL. Thanks anyway.
I wonder if there is a simple way of just queueing the run of a function
make it only run once at a time but by multiply threads? :)
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:54:57 -0800, Jonathan Gardner
wrote:
> For lots of transactions ru
