From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Single-Transaction Utility options |
Date: | 2005-12-18 21:41:11 |
Message-ID: | 1134942071.2964.211.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Sun, 2005-12-18 at 21:51 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I believe Peter's question was rhetorical: what he meant to point out
> > is that the documentation needs to explain what is the reason for
> > having this switch, ie, in what cases would you use it or not use it?
> > Just saying what it does isn't really adequate docs.
>
> I once considered implementing this myself but found it infeasible for
> some reason I don't remember. Nevertheless I always thought that
> having an atomic restore ought to be a non-optional feature. Are there
> situations where one would not want to use it? (And if so, which one
> is the more normal case?)
You're thinking is good. I guess if restores never failed, I'd be
inclined to agree 100%, but I'm at about 80% right now.
I'd say: if the patch is accepted technically, lets debate this point
more widely on -hackers.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-19 02:21:56 | Test, please ignore |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-12-18 21:32:09 | Re: COPY LOCK for WAL bypass |