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 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-02-27 17:34:12 | Re: Packed short varlenas, what next? |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-02-27 17:32:09 | Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option |