> One of the things that's really attractive about the proposed mode is
> that it does *not* create a risk of data corruption
Oh, ok. That wasn't how I understood Simon's case.
> I agree that we ought to look at some performance numbers before
> accepting the patch, but I think Josh's argument that this opens us
> up to major corruption problems is probably wrong.
OK. I've seen no performance numbers yet though. It just seems to me that
any performance patch proposal should start a discussion of what amount of
performance we expect to gain.
Unfortunately, this is *not* a patch I can test on TPCE or SpecJ, because both
of those have ACID requirements which I don't think this would satisfy. I'd
have to modify the benchmark, and I already have 4 performance patches queue
which don't require that.
PostgreSQL @ Sun
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Galy Lee||Date: 2007-02-28 01:32:20|
|Subject: Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2007-02-28 00:55:44|
|Subject: Re: conversion efforts (Re: SCMS question)|