Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Single-Transaction Utility options

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 (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-12-19 02:21:56
Subject: Test, please ignore
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2005-12-18 21:32:09
Subject: Re: COPY LOCK for WAL bypass

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group