Re: Should commit_delay be PGC_SIGHUP?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should commit_delay be PGC_SIGHUP?
Date: 2013-03-22 12:42:19
Message-ID: CA+TgmoY4r2=KM4jg6Cj3_jyJQwMZUYRb9H_Ymgi=6PBh4T==qA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hmm. If a malicious user could hurt performance for other sessions with
>> a bad setting of commit_delay, then USERSET is clearly a bad idea.
>> But it still seems like it could be SUSET rather than SIGHUP.
>
> Agreed; everybody gets what they want. Committed.

This is fine with me, too, and I agree that it's warranted... but your
commit message supposes that this behavior is new in 9.3, and I think
it dates to 9.2. I'm not inclined to think the issue is serious
enough to back-patch (and risk breaking current installations) but I
thought that it worth mentioning....

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ants Aasma 2013-03-22 12:45:58 Re: Page replacement algorithm in buffer cache
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2013-03-22 12:06:39 Re: Should commit_delay be PGC_SIGHUP?