Re: Oracle2PostgreSQL Migration with PL/pgSQL

From: Howard J. Rogers <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:23:47 +1100
Message-Id: <pan.2003.03.11.03.23.47.287077@yahoo.com.au>

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:48:54 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

>> > [...] and there are instead places where PITR is needed
>> > thus PostgreSQL isn't yet an option.
>>
>> Ok, from my (very limited) experience I would agree that Oracle
>> provides abundantly in the "Pain In The Rectum" department, but why
>> would you actually *want* that?

>
> Heaps of low-end Oracle users are switching to PostgreSQL all the time.
> They complained that the admin overhead for PostgreSQL was far too low.
> They missed having to create rollback segments and having queries fail when
> there wasn't enough segments, that they had to run in special partitions
> etc. Basically, it wasn't painful enough.
>
> Hence, we will be adding extra Pain In The Rectum support in 7.4 :)
>
> Chris

I realise that this is humour, after a fashion ('round about the 70's, I would say), but queries will never fail in Oracle because "there wasn't [sic] enough segments".

Even when re-parsed into something approaching normal English (viz, "there weren't enough segments"), it's still not true.

Reports fail because the SIZE of a (rollback) segment is too small, not because there aren't enough of them. One can never know in which rollback segment the undo you require for a read-consistent image will be located, and hence a proliferation of rollback segments makes not a jot of difference as to whether your crucial report will actually appear or not.

PS. Stop cross-posting.

Regards
HJR Received on Mon Mar 10 2003 - 21:23:47 CST