kawasima@cs.tsukuba.ac.jp (Hideyuki Kawashima) wrote:
> Joshua,
>
> I appreciate your quick & informative reply. And, I also really
> appreciate your kind comments. Since I have joined this ML 3 hours
> ago, I tried to be polite and slightly nervous. But I was relieved
> by your message.
Your idea sounds interesting; there is likely to be a considerable
resistance to mechanisms, however, that would be likely to make
PostgreSQL less robust.
Be aware, also, that in a public forum like this, people are sometimes
less gentle than Joshua.
The fundamental trouble with this mechanism is that a power outage can
instantly turn a database into crud.
One may try to mitigate that problem by supporting the memory device
with multiple power supplies *and* multiple UPSes.
But there is a not-inconsiderable risk that people will fail to read
warnings, deploy databases in a way that leaves them exposed to total
loss, and then lay blame at this community's feet. I'm sure you can
understand why the community might resist that...
--
output = reverse("moc.liamg" "@" "enworbbc")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/internet.html
Babbage's Rule: "No man's cipher is worth looking at unless the
inventor has himself solved a very difficult cipher" (The Codebreakers
by Kahn, 2nd ed, pg 765)