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 > <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. Regards, David. -- David Fetter <david@xxxxxxxxxx> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@xxxxxxxxx Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
