| From: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ... |
| Date: | 2004-02-19 16:05:13 |
| Message-ID: | 1077206712.25444.44.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I vote for the GUC. Imho it is not comparable to the "autocommit" case,
> since it does not change the way your appl needs to react (appl needs to
> react to deadlock already).
Wrote one program a while ago that was very time sensitive. By the time
deadlock detection had been kicked off, the data was already invalid and
due to be replaced -- thus, it's impossible to have deadlocks with the
chosen design for that application.
The point is, PostgreSQL is fairly versatile and is a component of many
different environments. Method X might be great for what you're doing,
but it doesn't apply across the board.
The regex GUC doesn't impact a majority of applications either, but it
proved catastrophic to some.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2004-02-19 16:35:47 | Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ... |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-02-19 16:01:48 | Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ... |