On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 9:42 PM, David Fetter <david@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 >> <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. 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. -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
