From: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | 'Andres Freund' <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Statement-level rollback |
Date: | 2018-12-10 02:03:37 |
Message-ID: | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FB3C1BA@G01JPEXMBYT05 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: Andres Freund [mailto:andres(at)anarazel(dot)de]
> Isn't the realistic scenario for migrations that people will turn this
> feature on on a more global basis? If they need to do per transaction choices,
> that makes this much less useful for easy migrations.
Agreed. My approach of per transaction choice may be overkill. Actually, I didn't think per-transaction change was really necessary in practice. But I didn't think of any reason to prohibit per transaction change, so I just wanted to allow flexibility.
I think per database/user change (ALTER DATABASE/USER) can be useful, in cases where applications are migrated from other DBMSs to a PostgreSQL instance. That is, database consolidation for easier data analytics and database management. One database/schema holds data for a PostgreSQL application, and another one stores data for a migrated application.
Or, should we recommend a separate PostgreSQL instance on a different VM or container, and just introduce the parameter only in postgresql.conf?
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Takahashi, Ryohei | 2018-12-10 02:15:07 | RE: Too many logs are written on Windows (LOG: could not reserve shared memory region (addr=%p) for child %p:) |
Previous Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2018-12-10 00:21:35 | RE: Too many logs are written on Windows (LOG: could not reserve shared memory region (addr=%p) for child %p:) |