Re: Any Plans for cross database queries on the same server? - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | David Fetter |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Any Plans for cross database queries on the same server? |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20070131044430.GE31611@fetter.org Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Any Plans for cross database queries on the same server? (Richard Troy <rtroy@ScienceTools.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Any Plans for cross database queries on the same server?
Re: Any Plans for cross database queries on the same server? |
List | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 04:43:14PM -0800, Richard Troy wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Mark Walker wrote: > > > > I don't know. My customers expect 24/7 reliability. They expect > > to be able to access their info anywhere in the world over a > > variety of different devices. I can remember times when people > > would just go home because computer networks were down. I haven't > > seen that happen in a long time. > > ...Back in 1986, Cheryl Healy and I took on running Polaroid's > corporate systems "24 X 7" - and we worked hard to make it "24 X 7 X > 365.24". Shortly thereafter - while still working with Cheryl, > Angel Vila, Chris Boerner and I took on running Bellcore's 800 > telephone network full time also - our success was measured how few > minutes/seconds there was any lost business at all on an annual > basis. (Bellcore was previously known as AT&T Bell Laboratories.) If > you made an 800 number based call from '86 to '89, the systems I > managed for Bellcore helped place that call. ... I could go on. I've > worked in the "always up" community a long time now and have worked > with/for more corporations in this capacity than nearly anyone you > might find - mostly very large, well known companies. > > My observation is that we have a real shortage of quality operating > systems today, and what few exist/remain don't enjoy much market > share because they're not based on Unix, so they're largely missing > out on the Open Source activity. What may be worse, young people who > don't know any better are sometimes told/taught not to bother with > anything over five years old as it's antiquated so they don't ever > find out that things could be better - and once were. (Example, > anyone who thinks "man pages" are great has obviously got a very > limited experience from which to base their opinion!) ... As a > practical matter today we mostly have a choice of Windows or some > flavor of unix, neither of which are great. That would be very > different in my opinion if only Unix didn't have this asenine view > that the choice between a memory management strategy that kills > random processes and turning that off and accepting that your system > hangs is a reasonable choice and that spending a measily % of > performance in overhead to eliminate the problem is out of the > question. Asenine, I tell you. The OOM killer in Linux is, indeed, asinine. You can shut it off, though, and systems administrators worth their salt know this and do it as a matter of routine. If you have some strategy that doesn't involve those hangs as a consequence, I'm sure you can get an audience from the Linux kernel people and/or the FreeBSD ones. > Meanwhile, what Operating Systems ARE _today_ reliable choices upon > which to run your Postgres datababse engine? > > ...BTW, McDonalds in Paris?! -smile- Just make sure you order > Freedom Fries! McDonalds in Paris is good for one thing and one thing only: their free public toilets. :) Cheers, D (and even the French understand that fries are actually from Belgium ;) -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote!
pgsql-general by date: