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/
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 |