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
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option
Date: 2007-02-28 01:30:19
Message-ID: 200702271730.19428.josh@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom,

> 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.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Galy LeeDate: 2007-02-28 01:32:20
Subject: Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-02-28 00:55:44
Subject: Re: conversion efforts (Re: SCMS question)

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