| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "Florian Weimer" <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22) |
| Date: | 2007-07-24 21:37:43 |
| Message-ID: | 873azd7aag.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> If we don't do that then regular users have the ability to put the
>> catalog (and by extension everything else) at risk...
>
> How do you arrive at that conclusion? The point of the async commit
> patch is that transactions might be lost, as in not really committed,
> but there can be no database corruption. Otherwise we'd never consider
> making it a userset config setting.
I think the danger that arises is not related to catalogs so much as it is
related to end-of-transaction filesystem operations such as dropping heap
files. If those operations are done but the related transaction commit is lost
then you have a problem.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-07-24 21:47:31 | Re: msvc and vista fun |
| Previous Message | Andrei Kovalevski | 2007-07-24 21:33:32 | Re: msvc and vista fun |