Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

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)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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