Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option
Date: 2007-02-28 01:30:19
Message-ID: 200702271730.19428.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom,

> One of the things that's really attractive about the proposed mode is
> that it does *not* create a risk of data corruption

Oh, ok. That wasn't how I understood Simon's case.

> I agree that we ought to look at some performance numbers before
> accepting the patch, but I think Josh's argument that this opens us
> up to major corruption problems is probably wrong.

OK. I've seen no performance numbers yet though. It just seems to me that
any performance patch proposal should start a discussion of what amount of
performance we expect to gain.

Unfortunately, this is *not* a patch I can test on TPCE or SpecJ, because both
of those have ACID requirements which I don't think this would satisfy. I'd
have to modify the benchmark, and I already have 4 performance patches queue
which don't require that.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Galy Lee 2007-02-28 01:32:20 Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2007-02-28 00:55:44 Re: conversion efforts (Re: SCMS question)