| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: cheaper snapshots |
| Date: | 2011-07-28 19:42:11 |
| Message-ID: | 3789.1311882131@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 14:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> We can't make either transaction visible without making
>> both visible, and we certainly can't acknowledge the second
>> transaction to the client until we've made it visible. I'm not going
>> to say that's so horrible we shouldn't even consider it, but it
>> doesn't seem great, either.
> Maybe this is why other databases don't offer per backend async commit ?
Yeah, I've always thought that feature wasn't as simple as it appeared.
It got in only because it was claimed to be cost-free, and it's now
obvious that it isn't.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2011-07-28 19:56:32 | Re: cheaper snapshots |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2011-07-28 19:40:57 | Re: cheaper snapshots |