From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option |
Date: | 2007-02-27 05:45:19 |
Message-ID: | 20070227054519.GQ29041@nasby.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:05:45AM +0700, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> On Tue, February 27, 2007 06:06, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >> Why do we want this?? Because some apps have *lots* of data and many
> >> really don't care whether they lose a few records. Honestly, I've met
> >> people that want this, even after 2 hours of discussion and
> >> understanding. Plus probably lots of MySQLers also.
> >
> > Most users will take speed over data loss any day. Whether we want to
> > admit it or not.
>
> In that case, wouldn't it make just as much sense to have an equivalent
> for this special transaction mode on individual statements, without
> transaction context? I'm guessing that who don't really know or want
> transactions would never start one, running lots of loose statements
> instead that otherwise get committed individually.
I don't think it makes sense to optimize for people who can't be
bothered to learn about a transaction. In any case, that option is
there; you just set the GUC in the session.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-27 05:47:14 | Re: Seeking Google SoC Mentors |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-02-27 05:43:22 | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 |