Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Single-Transaction Utility options

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Single-Transaction Utility options
Date: 2005-12-18 20:51:23
Message-ID: 200512182151.24517.peter_e@gmx.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> I believe Peter's question was rhetorical: what he meant to point out
> is that the documentation needs to explain what is the reason for
> having this switch, ie, in what cases would you use it or not use it?
> Just saying what it does isn't really adequate docs.

I once considered implementing this myself but found it infeasible for 
some reason I don't remember.  Nevertheless I always thought that 
having an atomic restore ought to be a non-optional feature.  Are there 
situations where one would not want to use it?  (And if so, which one 
is the more normal case?)

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2005-12-18 21:28:21
Subject: Re: Single-Transaction Utility options
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-18 19:04:53
Subject: Re: Single-Transaction Utility options

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group