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

Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option
Date: 2007-02-27 17:32:38
Message-ID: 200702270932.38610.josh@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: 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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2007-02-27 17:34:12
Subject: Re: Packed short varlenas, what next?
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2007-02-27 17:32:09
Subject: Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

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