From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option |
Date: | 2007-02-28 01:30:19 |
Message-ID: | 200702271730.19428.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
> One of the things that's really attractive about the proposed mode is
> that it does *not* create a risk of data corruption
Oh, ok. That wasn't how I understood Simon's case.
> I agree that we ought to look at some performance numbers before
> accepting the patch, but I think Josh's argument that this opens us
> up to major corruption problems is probably wrong.
OK. I've seen no performance numbers yet though. It just seems to me that
any performance patch proposal should start a discussion of what amount of
performance we expect to gain.
Unfortunately, this is *not* a patch I can test on TPCE or SpecJ, because both
of those have ACID requirements which I don't think this would satisfy. I'd
have to modify the benchmark, and I already have 4 performance patches queue
which don't require that.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Galy Lee | 2007-02-28 01:32:20 | Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-02-28 00:55:44 | Re: conversion efforts (Re: SCMS question) |