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

Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "Florian Weimer" <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22)
Date: 2007-07-24 21:53:34
Message-ID: 23304.1185314014@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> There is an explicit test for whether the transaction has modified
> files; if so the commit is always synchronous, even if explicitly
> requested otherwise. Also, utility commands never perform async commits,
> so overall there aren't that many of the commonly used DDL commands that
> could be performed and still have it be an async commit.

Huh?  I see neither a reason for these restrictions nor any way that you
could enforce them without horrid kluges.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2007-07-25 04:21:17
Subject: Re: RETURN QUERY
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-07-24 21:47:31
Subject: Re: msvc and vista fun

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