silasmariner

It's weird though. One of the accounts I tagged has just become more and more reasonable and I feel like. Idk. They certainly weren't all bad or deceptive people -- and being mean to and about them won't really help them figure it out ... OTOH fuck ppl who do stupid shit because they're too proud to accept inherent complicity in the evils of the lesser.

Good for you babes, but I wouldn't trust you to wipe your arse if you can't even keep data consistent

I misread the spine of a book when I was 10 and looking for my first username. George Eliot is fucking phenomenal though and no regregts.

I tagged loads of accounts at the time, thinking they were just bots or plants, but a couple are still around and now I think maybe they're just well-meaning morons who couldn't quite figure out the implications...

Jesus fucking Christ man, not everyone's use cases are your use cases. Get some real world experience. If you don't know the kinda shit you have to actually do, it's easy, but sometimes the show's just gotta go on

No u

Lol what an absurd take. A transaction is a sequence of operations, not a single one, so even small tables can meet that threshold with enough query logic. I guess you're unfamiliar with medium to large datasets, but it's not uncommon to use the aggregate functions that SQL provides in real world situations, and on large tables that can easily reasonably exceed 1s. Toy my arse. Go play with yourself

Although this is no surprise tbh because apparently you don't understand why transactions are even necessary. Benchmarks shmenchmarks. Whether it works is more important.

But adding it to an 80ms operation is. If your operation is 0.5ms it's either a read on a small table, or maybe a single write -- transaction isolation wouldn't even be relevant there. You're right that I did mean consistency rather that integrity though, slip of the terminology, but not really worth quibbling over. The point I meant was that I like my data to make sense, a funny quirk of mine.

Well it depends how much data integrity is worth to you, and how your system works. Every write in postgres is already a transaction - when you can get away with simple crud stuff, often there's nothing to do, you have transactionality already. Transaction isolation levels are where db operation costs might change under concurrent conflicting writes but you can tune that by ensuring single-writer-per-partition or whatever in your server logic and it might add a ms or two. OTOH if you have heavy contestation it can be much more expensive. The performance implications are complicated but can certainly kept to a fraction of overall cost depending on your workload!

In return they get an actually secure messing app they can use without having to support it themselves. Which is pretty big.

Restarts in a server between dB updates that in a sane world would be txns I meant (e.g update A, crash so don't update B). Anyway, in postgres they're pretty cheap in the absence of actual conflict -- more expensive if you have actual cinflicts, obvs.

Well you might also need to run some arcane incantation to remove quarantine bits, too. And it'll only work if it's actually been ported to the m-series chips, of course. And sometimes you just need to compile the whole god damn app yourself anyway. But sure, caveats side, you can run anything you want on macos that runs on macos. As long as you're not using a company-issued device and are forbidden.