From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <326364c20811210601s14485430x386788a4205da23b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:01:31 -0500 From: "Tom Lieber" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <4926A19F.9030409@proweb.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3d61afbea6c3d54d8371a08214902949@9netics.com> <4926A19F.9030409@proweb.co.uk> Subject: Re: [9fans] web-based plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4e7098d0-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 6:55 AM, matt wrote: > I've tried a couple of times to map files / directories on to SQL and it is > not a great match imho. > > I wrote a Limbo module that handles the postgresql protocol and frankly > that's as far as I thought it should be taken, writes are one time use and > any returned qureries are (potentially) outdated by the time the client gets > them. Any FS would end up as a read only cache with somewhere to send sql > writes and a load of logic that repeats what's on the SQL server already. > > I split my system into two - one to deal with the SQL and one that makes a > FS tree from columnated data. Though I abandoned dev on the tree because I > just ended up accessing the data through the Limbo pg module directly. How was the data more outdated than when you used pg directly? -- Tom Lieber http://AllTom.com/