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

Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option
Date: 2007-02-27 05:45:19
Message-ID: 20070227054519.GQ29041@nasby.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:05:45AM +0700, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> On Tue, February 27, 2007 06:06, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >> Why do we want this?? Because some apps have *lots* of data and many
> >> really don't care whether they lose a few records. Honestly, I've met
> >> people that want this, even after 2 hours of discussion and
> >> understanding. Plus probably lots of MySQLers also.
> >
> > Most users will take speed over data loss any day. Whether we want to
> > admit it or not.
> 
> In that case, wouldn't it make just as much sense to have an equivalent
> for this special transaction mode on individual statements, without
> transaction context?  I'm guessing that who don't really know or want
> transactions would never start one, running lots of loose statements
> instead that otherwise get committed individually.

I don't think it makes sense to optimize for people who can't be
bothered to learn about a transaction. In any case, that option is
there; you just set the GUC in the session.
-- 
Jim Nasby                                            jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-02-27 05:47:14
Subject: Re: Seeking Google SoC Mentors
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2007-02-27 05:43:22
Subject: Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2

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