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

Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>,Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>,Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, 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: 2007-03-01 15:24:22
Message-ID: 20070301152421.GJ15006@nasby.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:16:10PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> background writer, and I think after a server crash, all pages would
> have to be read and checked.  The good news is that both of these are

Would they? If you're doing recovery you'd have to read all pages
dirtied since the last checkpoint... could there be pages other than
those that had been torn?
-- 
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: 2007-03-01 15:31:38
Subject: Re: CLUSTER, using SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE lock?
Previous:From: Pavan DeolaseeDate: 2007-03-01 15:12:46
Subject: Re: HOT - preliminary results

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