Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option
Date: 2007-02-28 01:32:52
Message-ID: 45E4DBC4.2050805@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>
>>>> On 2/27/07, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>> I see no reason to implement it if there is no performance gain.
>
>> However, I strongly concur that we need at least some evidence. It could
>> easily be that a misstep in the code, causes a loop over the wrong set
>> and all the performance we thought we would get is invalid, not because
>> of theory or what should happen, but because of actual implementation.
>
> It rather sounds like you're asking for a proof that Simon can write bug-free
> code before you allow him to write any code.

Well wouldn't that be great! :) but no, not quite. I would just like to
see some metrics showing that it is a benefit. Besides the patch needs
to work for the metrics to be run.

Joshua D. Drake

>
>

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-02-28 01:36:00 Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option
Previous Message Galy Lee 2007-02-28 01:32:20 Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview