j-cheong

Thank you! Appreciate it :)

Good question. Actually it's not possible for a power loss to occur after a change is made to the database but before the record is marked in the WAL. This is because Postgres ensures that all changes are written to the WAL and flushed to disk before they are applied to the database. This write-ahead mechanism guarantees that even if a power outage occurs immediately after a change is applied, the transaction's record is already safely stored in the WAL.

i thought this was pretty cool. am i alone? lol

how hard is it to steal your eye scan?

Changing a PostgreSQL column type without following the author's instructions and just running the following command is VERY anti-pattern. Confused why people do this in the first place.

ALTER TABLE table_name ALTER COLUMN column_name [SET DATA] TYPE new_data_type

>you need to make sure the source system has enough disk space to hold the WAL files for a long enough time

if the asynchronous replication process has an external buffer instead of the WAL, then it addresses this issue

>I don't understand why x-day free trials haven't been replaced with usage-based free trials.

Hmm I would say usage-based free trials are problematic because a small company might only use it 10 times but an enterprise might need to run 10k files to fully trial the product. So what usage level would you set it at? If you go too high the small companies can be on a free trial for years, effectively a freemium model.

Kind of unrelated but I'm curious if there are any really robust usage-based billing solutions out there. Curious how they're architected to solve usage-based billing across their customers/various use cases.

I'm always concerned about automating the billing process and risking accuracy/trust.

If you live with a smoking man, then they shouldn't be counted in the nonsmoker category?

I think the anger comes from the rug pull, not that they chose to be source available, right?

If they chose to be source available from day 1, then no harm done?

I was under the impression that workers earning less than $151,164 annually usually don't have noncompetes anyway? Sounds like a lot of people will get bucketed into "senior executives" group. At least new noncompetes can't be created.

lmao

this! swap out AI for any other big topic and result is similar

Hard to say how much is seasonality vs laying people off due to increases in robots based on historical numbers. Thanks for breaking this out.