Re: more anti-postgresql FUD
От | Jim C. Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: more anti-postgresql FUD |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20061013180744.GJ28647@nasby.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: more anti-postgresql FUD ("Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: more anti-postgresql FUD
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:52:10PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On 10/13/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes: > >> Is that really true? In theory block n+1 could be half a revolution > >> after block n, allowing you to commit two transactions per revolution. > > > >Not relevant, unless the prior transaction happened to end exactly at a > > does full page writes setting affect this? If anything it makes it more true, but full pages are only written the first time a page is dirtied after a checkpoint, so in a high-transaction system I suspect they don't have a lot of impact. It would be nice to have stats on how many transactions have to write a full page, as well as how many have been written, though... -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: