Re: Why do we still have commit_delay and commit_siblings?

From: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why do we still have commit_delay and commit_siblings?
Date: 2012-05-14 14:24:13
Message-ID: CAEYLb_Wy876bF1Z=mmoTHsPB-FguQu657wWj9eQ5PMZZuYjsCQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 14 May 2012 15:09, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't have a strong opinion
> about that, and welcome discussion.  But I'm always going to be
> opposed to adding or removing things on the basis of what we didn't
> test.

The subject of the thread is "Why do we still have commit_delay and
commit_siblings?". I don't believe that anyone asserted that we should
remove the settings without some amount of due-diligence testing.
Simon said that thorough testing on many types of hardware was not
practical, which, considering that commit_delay is probably hardly
ever (never?) used in production, I'd have to agree with. With all due
respect, for someone that doesn't have a strong opinion on the
efficacy of commit_delay in 9.2, you seemed to have a strong opinion
on the standard that would have to be met in order to deprecate it.

I think we all could stand to give each other the benefit of the doubt more.

--
Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex Shulgin 2012-05-14 15:16:19 Re: libpq URL syntax vs SQLAlchemy
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-05-14 14:09:34 Re: Why do we still have commit_delay and commit_siblings?