| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Rod Taylor" <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Chad Wagner" <chad(dot)wagner(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, RPK <rohitprakash123(at)indiatimes(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: New feature request: FlashBack Query |
| Date: | 2007-02-20 19:48:44 |
| Message-ID: | 36e682920702201148q3ccb03bai83900161b79c769e@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/20/07, Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Do 97% of transactions commit because Oracle has slow rollbacks and
> developers are working around that performance issue, or because they
> really commit?
Again, off-topic, but 97% of all transactions commit according to Jim
Gray and his research... not anything related to Oracle.
> I have watched several developers that would prefer to issue numerous
> selects to verify things like foreign keys in the application in
> order to avoid a rollback.
That's just bad development.
> Anyway, I don't have experience with big Oracle applications but I'm
> not so sure that 97% of transactions would commit if rollbacks were
> cheaper.
Again, stats not related to Oracle, but databases in general.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2007-02-20 20:04:16 | Re: New feature request: FlashBack Query |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2007-02-20 19:46:34 | Re: statement_timeout doesnt work within plpgsql by design? |