| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: commit_delay, siblings |
| Date: | 2005-06-22 20:23:02 |
| Message-ID: | 8764w6ywd5.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> > The theory is good, but useful values for commit_delay would probably be
> > under a millisecond, and there isn't any portable way to sleep for such
> > short periods.
Just because there's no "portable" way to be sure it'll work doesn't mean
there's no point in trying. If one user sets it to 5ms and it's effective for
him there's no reason to take out the option for him just because it doesn't
work out as well on all platforms.
Linux, for example has moved to higher clock speeds precisely because things
like movie and music players need to be able to control their timing to much
more precision than 10ms.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-06-22 20:24:35 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Removing Kerberos 4 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-22 19:59:36 | Re: Why is checkpoint so costly? |