Re: more anti-postgresql FUD

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: more anti-postgresql FUD
Date: 2006-10-13 18:05:46
Message-ID: 1160762746.31966.251.camel@dogma.v10.wvs
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 13:52 -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 10/13/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> > > Is that really true? In theory block n+1 could be half a revolution
> > > after block n, allowing you to commit two transactions per revolution.
> >
> > Not relevant, unless the prior transaction happened to end exactly at a
>
> does full page writes setting affect this?
>

No, full page writes only affects checkpoints.

For a transaction to commit, some bits must hit permanent storage
*somewhere*. If that location is in one general area on disk, you must
either commit several transactions at once (see commit_delay), or you
must wait until the next revolution to get back to that area of the
disk.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message brian 2006-10-13 18:06:49 Re: some log statements ignored
Previous Message J S B 2006-10-13 17:59:16 Backup DB not getting connected

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stefan Kaltenbrunner 2006-10-13 18:07:17 Re: [PERFORM] Hints proposal
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-10-13 17:58:33 Re: [PERFORM] Hints proposal