Re: Why do we still have commit_delay and commit_siblings?
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why do we still have commit_delay and commit_siblings? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEYLb_Wy876bF1Z=mmoTHsPB-FguQu657wWj9eQ5PMZZuYjsCQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why do we still have commit_delay and commit_siblings? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why do we still have commit_delay and commit_siblings?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 14 May 2012 15:09, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't have a strong opinion > about that, and welcome discussion. But I'm always going to be > opposed to adding or removing things on the basis of what we didn't > test. The subject of the thread is "Why do we still have commit_delay and commit_siblings?". I don't believe that anyone asserted that we should remove the settings without some amount of due-diligence testing. Simon said that thorough testing on many types of hardware was not practical, which, considering that commit_delay is probably hardly ever (never?) used in production, I'd have to agree with. With all due respect, for someone that doesn't have a strong opinion on the efficacy of commit_delay in 9.2, you seemed to have a strong opinion on the standard that would have to be met in order to deprecate it. I think we all could stand to give each other the benefit of the doubt more. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: