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
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? |