All of us. We just choose a different place to start.

Especially from a glowing review that explains how it's a book that is effective due to its non-quick-fix approach, and yet Amazon tells me was published less than 6 weeks ago?

Vim? Joining 10 tables is a ballache in terms of typing, but it's not actually /hard/ - any more than writing a function with 10 statements is hard. You just need to step away from the ORM long enough to realise that actually relational databases are perfectly logical and easy (well, as easy as any other programming) despite what various frameworks have screamed at you for years.

The study only looked at elective surgery, not urgent surgery.

I mean I guess the summary could have been written in a more cunty way, but I don't see how. So high fives all round!

True. These infernal "computer" things would be going nowhere if it weren't for the clever marketing.

It's more sarcastic. Please try to keep up.

Before node.js it was literally impossible to use JS on a server. Thanks Node!!!1

Now we've got homeopaths and spiritualists involved, a cure for cancer must surely be just around the corner!!

Seriously?!

Why is Slashdot running a story about someone making a piece of simple (if awkward) equipment that has been used all over the world for decades?

" for a (highly negotiable) fee"

Oh, now I see. As you were.

But not very well, it would appear: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/2010-2011/02/20110223_drug_dogs.html

Well...arguably. This is the exact same argument as Apache vs Nginx, where Apache spawns a child process per client, whereas Nginx has a limited number of worker processes that handle a queue of requests as they become free. Nginx definitely has an advantage in terms of RAM when servicing thousands of (truly) simultaneous requests.

While Postgresql does use the Apache model, there is middleware available (google 'pgpool' for an example) that amongst other things will queue requests so they can be serviced by a limited number of children. Of course this only matters if there are an awful lot of simultaneous queries (without the corresponding amount of server RAM).

However; your claim about threads per CPU is oversimplified, and especially wrong with a DB server where processes will most likely be IO bound. With 1 core, for example, there is nothing wrong with having 5 processes parsing and planning a query for a few microseconds, while the 6th is monopolising IO actually retrieving query results. Or the reverse - having 1 CPU-bound process occasionally being interrupted to service 5 IO bound processes, which would negligibly impact the CPU-bound query, while hugely improving latency on the IO bound queries.

Each client connected to the DB has its own child process - the shared memory is a buffer that is shared across postgresql child PIDs with the same parent. That's why the proposed patch would work using an anonymous shared memory segment - because the memory is only passed to children of the same process.

A polymath in a specific subject?