| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: more anti-postgresql FUD |
| Date: | 2006-10-13 17:52:10 |
| Message-ID: | b42b73150610131052h52d5adf4g885b1021ed4209b4@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 10/13/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> > Is that really true? In theory block n+1 could be half a revolution
> > after block n, allowing you to commit two transactions per revolution.
>
> Not relevant, unless the prior transaction happened to end exactly at a
does full page writes setting affect this?
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-10-13 17:55:39 | Re: Partitioning vs. View of a UNION ALL |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-10-13 17:51:01 | Re: A query planner that learns |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-10-13 17:58:33 | Re: [PERFORM] Hints proposal |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2006-10-13 17:44:41 | Re: [PERFORM] Hints proposal |