| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22) |
| Date: | 2007-07-24 20:25:07 |
| Message-ID: | 15643.1185308707@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 02:08:00PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Is it true that a transaction is turned into sync commit as soon as it
>> writes on a system catalog? Is it desirable to make it so?
> If we don't do that then regular users have the ability to put the
> catalog (and by extension everything else) at risk...
How do you arrive at that conclusion? The point of the async commit
patch is that transactions might be lost, as in not really committed,
but there can be no database corruption. Otherwise we'd never consider
making it a userset config setting.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-07-24 21:24:45 | Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22) |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-07-24 20:11:43 | Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22) |