From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 12:06:39 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJtUv5cNc2PAJdeWDygurU7Au6Y8fN6FjtWH+c_dnaysw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 22 March 2013 02:14, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Only one setting will be best for the whole cluster, so neither the
>> user nor the DBA gains if a user sets this to a different value than
>> the one that has been determined to be optimal.
>
>> Since we wait while holding the lock it is actually harmful to
>> everyone if anybody sets a stupid value and might even be considered a
>> denial of service attack.
>
>> So there is a very good reason to make this SIGHUP, not just a whim.
>
> 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.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-03-22 12:42:19 | Re: Should commit_delay be PGC_SIGHUP? |
Previous Message | Atri Sharma | 2013-03-22 11:29:38 | Re: Page replacement algorithm in buffer cache |