Re: Draft release notes complete

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Draft release notes complete
Date: 2012-05-15 16:51:33
Message-ID: CA+Tgmobg4QQBguLhnA=taHenSH0k0=ifkxDwACgTGtJga5cK2A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> The mere ability to notice that an XLogFlush() call is unnecessary and
> fastpath out could be argued to be an aboriginal group commit,
> predating even commit_delay, as could skipping duplicate fsync()
> requests in XLogWrite(), which I think Jeff pointed out, but I don't
> think anyone actually takes this position.

Well, Tom appears to have to have he'd implemented group commit in 2002.

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-10/msg00331.php

More accurately, he seems to have thought that group commit was
already there, and he'd improved it. So saying that we're getting it
for the first time ten years later seems pretty odd to me.

I don't deny that the new feature is a significant improvement under
the right circumstances. But I still maintain it's an improvement of
something that was already there, rather than something new.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2012-05-15 16:57:37 Re: Draft release notes complete
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-05-15 16:39:17 Re: Why do we still have commit_delay and commit_siblings?