Re: Re: AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem

From: Denis Perchine <dyp(at)perchine(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
Date: 2001-05-22 07:25:59
Message-ID: 20010522071641.9F99A1C49B@mx.webmailstation.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > As a rule of thumb, online applications that hold open
> > transactions during user interaction are considered to be
> > Broken By Design (tm). So I'd slap the programmer/design
> > team with - let's use the server box since it doesn't contain
> > anything useful.
>
> Many web applications use persistent database connections for performance
> reasons.

Persistent connection is not the same as an OPEN transaction BTW.

> I suppose it's unlikely for webapps to update a row and then sit and wait a
> long time for a hit, so it shouldn't affect most of them.
>
> However if long running transactions are to be aborted automatically, it
> could possibly cause problems with some apps out there.
>
> Worse if long running transactions are _disconnected_ (not just aborted).

--
Sincerely Yours,
Denis Perchine

----------------------------------
E-Mail: dyp(at)perchine(dot)com
HomePage: http://www.perchine.com/dyp/
FidoNet: 2:5000/120.5
----------------------------------

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kaare Rasmussen 2001-05-22 07:37:36 Feedback
Previous Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB 2001-05-22 07:19:53 AW: Is stats update during COPY IN really a good idea?