Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Postgres (Score 1) 527

by jabbo (#16114382) Attached to: PostgreSQL Slammed by PHP Creator
> I spoke to the developers and was told in a rather snooty reply that they had no plans to allow the user to optionally disable transactional 'features'.

If you don't need transactions, why are you bothering with a database? Just use a coherent shared-memory cache and dispense with the slowdown from parsing queries.

It's called a design decision, and the postgres developers decided to focus on features important to people who need transactions. If you really want this 'feature' (non-transactional behavior), and it can't be set as one of the transaction isolation levels, I'm sure they'd be willing to accept a patch from you.

Or use Postgres' autovacuum features. You aren't, by chance, referring to an ancient version of Postgres that lacked autovacuum, are you? I was under the impression (having used Postgres in some fairly heavy-duty deployments with thousands of concurrent users) that this is exactly what VACUUM takes care of. Autovacuum must be even nicer. I wouldn't know, I seem to use MySQL all the time nowadays unless the task requires a real database.

Or, hell, you could (gasp) use MySQL. Its original design was focused on non-transactional database needs. It's great for light-duty things where you want to throw them together and not spend too long optimizing queries.

Use the right tool for the job... maybe postgres isn't the right tool for your jobs.

That's not really something you can attribute to the tool manufacturers, you know?

Bill Could Restrict Freedom of the Press 747

Posted by Zonk
from the who-needs-news? dept.
WerewolfOfVulcan writes "The Washington Post is carrying an article about a disturbing Senate bill that could make it illegal to publicly disclose even the existence of US domestic spying programs (i.e. NSA wiretaps)." An aide to the bill's author assures us it's not aimed at reporters, but the language is ambiguous at best. From the article: "Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the measure is broader than any existing laws. She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified. 'The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact,' said Martin, a civil liberties advocate."

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.