From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "Florian Weimer" <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22) |
Date: | 2007-07-24 21:53:34 |
Message-ID: | 23304.1185314014@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> There is an explicit test for whether the transaction has modified
> files; if so the commit is always synchronous, even if explicitly
> requested otherwise. Also, utility commands never perform async commits,
> so overall there aren't that many of the commonly used DDL commands that
> could be performed and still have it be an async commit.
Huh? I see neither a reason for these restrictions nor any way that you
could enforce them without horrid kluges.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2007-07-25 04:21:17 | Re: RETURN QUERY |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-07-24 21:47:31 | Re: msvc and vista fun |