Thread

1. RE: Is v7.1 stable enough?

   Franck Martin <franck@sopac.org> — 2001-03-14T04:58:48Z

   I would have a look on balsa which is a gnome mail client that use mysql for
   storing e-mails. May be it could be converted to PG.
   
   Franck Martin
   Network and Database Development Officer
   SOPAC South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission
   Fiji
   E-mail: franck@sopac.org <mailto:franck@sopac.org> 
   Web site: http://www.sopac.org/
   <http://www.sopac.org/> Support FMaps: http://fmaps.sourceforge.net/
   <http://fmaps.sourceforge.net/> 
   
   This e-mail is intended for its addresses only. Do not forward this e-mail
   without approval. The views expressed in this e-mail may not be necessarily
   the views of SOPAC.
   
   
   
   -----Original Message-----
   From: Jan Ploski [mailto:jpljpl@gmx.de]
   Sent: Wednesday, 14 March 2001 3:21 
   To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
   Subject: [GENERAL] Is v7.1 stable enough?
   
   
   Hello,
   
   Not so long ago the feasibility of using PostgreSQL for archiving mail
   and news articles was discussed (briefly). I am planning to put the
   database to work for just that purpose on a web-based e-mail site
   (switching from MySQL whose table locking on INSERT becomes a performance
   bottleneck). To work around the 8 KB page limit, I would have to use
   the 7.1 beta version, though, or store messages in files and reference
   those files from the database. The latter solution does not really appeal
   to me, as it makes ensuring referential integrity a pain. My question is:
   how stable is the current 7.1 code? Can it be used in a production
   environment
   or is it meant for internal bug squashing only? Am I asking for problems?
   
   Thanks for your advice -
   JPL
   
   ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
   TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
   
   

2. Re: Is v7.1 stable enough?

   Christopher Sawtell <csawtell@xtra.co.nz> — 2001-03-14T06:31:38Z

   > Not so long ago the feasibility of using PostgreSQL for archiving mail
   > and news articles was discussed (briefly). I am planning to put the
   > database to work for just that purpose on a web-based e-mail site
   > (switching from MySQL whose table locking on INSERT becomes a
   > performance bottleneck). To work around the 8 KB page limit, I would
   > have to use the 7.1 beta version, though, or store messages in files and
   > reference those files from the database. The latter solution does not
   > really appeal to me, as it makes ensuring referential integrity a pain.
   > My question is: how stable is the current 7.1 code? Can it be used in a
   > production environment
   > or is it meant for internal bug squashing only? Am I asking for
   > problems?
   
   I do not think so, because I have been playing with it and have found that 
   7.1 works fine. The new features are a real boon and blessing.
   
   Admittedly I have only been using it to develop a relatively simple web 
   application for which the database is only tiny biggest table is only ~300 
   tuples - I am not using any esoteric features either, just selects, 
   inserts, updates and a couple of plsql functions all called from php. Also 
   it is all single user at the moment ( there is only one of me ) and the 
   query rate is very low.
   
   Updated using cvsup a couple or three days ago.
   I'd go for it if I was in your position.
   
   -- 
   Sincerely etc.,
   
    NAME       Christopher Sawtell
    CELL PHONE 021 257 4451
    ICQ UIN    45863470
    EMAIL      csawtell @ xtra . co . nz
    CNOTES     ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/languages/C/tutorials/sawtell_C.tar.gz
   
    -->> Please refrain from using HTML or WORD attachments in e-mails to me 
   <<--