| From: | Francisco Olarte <folarte(at)peoplecall(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom DalPozzo <t(dot)dalpozzo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: huge table occupation after updates |
| Date: | 2016-12-10 17:33:30 |
| Message-ID: | CA+bJJbzL=KsmaBztA7rFptGcS_OYUCKdqVhszmXtaVZVL3=fKg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom:
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Tom DalPozzo <t(dot)dalpozzo(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> As for crash proof, I meant that once my client app is told that her update
> request was committed, it mustn't get lost (hdd failure apart of course).
> And I can't wait to flush the cache before telling to the app :"committed".
> I can replicate also the cache on the standby PC of course.
You are making inconsistent requests. When the server tells your app
it's commited, it has flush the transaction log cache. If your
assertion about is real, you cannot wait for commit, so your
requirements are imposible to satisfy ( of course, you could run with
scissors, but that will loose data without hdd failure ).
Francisco Olarte.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom DalPozzo | 2016-12-10 18:02:33 | Re: huge table occupation after updates |
| Previous Message | Francisco Olarte | 2016-12-10 17:30:52 | Re: huge table occupation after updates |