cache vs keep buffer pool

From: Norman Dunbar <Norman.Dunbar_at_lfs.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:07:40 +0100
Message-ID: <E2F6A70FE45242488C865C3BC1245DA702935A82@lnewton.leeds.lfs.co.uk>

Hi Niall,

I agree that blends should be poured away. And so should single/double and even triple malts.

That stuff tastes bleeding awful - no wonder we Scots export most of it :o)

Mind you, Balvennie (Spelling?) is drinkable :o)

Cheers,
Norman.
(Who hails from not a million miles away from Speyside)

---

Norman Dunbar
Database/Unix administrator
Lynx Financial Systems Ltd.
mailto:Norman.Dunbar_at_LFS.co.uk

Tel: 0113 289 6265
Fax: 0113 289 3146
URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com
-------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Niall Litchfield [mailto:n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk] Posted At: Thursday, August 29, 2002 3:56 PM Posted To: server
Conversation: cache vs keep buffer pool
Subject: Re: cache vs keep buffer pool

>> Single Malts of course should be drunk neat, whilst blends should be
poured
>> away untouched.
Received on Thu Aug 29 2002 - 11:07:40 CDT