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
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 |
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 |