Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200702270932.38610.josh@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option
Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Simon, One of the things I love about doing informal online user support in the PostgreSQL community, and formal user support for Sun's customers, is the almost-ironclad guarentee that if a user has a corrupt database or data loss, one of three things is true: a) they didn't apply some recommended PG update; b) they have a bad disk controller or disk config; c) they have bad ram. It seriously narrows down the problem space to know that PostgreSQL does *not* allow data loss if it's physically possible to prevent it. Therefore, if we're going to arm a foot-gun as big as COMMIT NOWAIT for PostgreSQL, I'd like to see the answers to two questions: a) Please give some examples of performance gain on applications using COMMIT NOWAIT. The performance gain needs to be substantial (like, 50% to 100%) to justify a compromise like this. b) Why this and not global temporary tables or queuing? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: