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)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-02-27 05:47:14|
|Subject: Re: Seeking Google SoC Mentors |
|Previous:||From: Jim C. Nasby||Date: 2007-02-27 05:43:22|
|Subject: Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2|