| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "aarnott(at)hotmail(dot)com" <aarnott(at)hotmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 20.5.1 |
| Date: | 2024-02-07 20:10:57 |
| Message-ID: | b617da05e12053585a07bd3bbd1ef2bcb973e8ff.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 09:59 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 7, 2024, PG Doc comments form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
> >
> > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/runtime-config-wal.html
> > Description:
> >
> > The sentence in commit_siblings "A larger value makes it more probable that
> > at least one other transaction will become ready to commit during the delay
> > interval." seems to belong in commit_delay instead.
> >
>
> That sentence in that location is correct. See “birthday paradox”.
To be more precise: if 15 other transactions are currently running, there
is a bigger chance that at least one of them will want to flush WAL before
"commit_delay" has expired than if there are only 3 other transactions.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Doc comments form | 2024-02-07 21:33:28 | Pathetic pedantry |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-02-07 16:59:05 | Re: 20.5.1 |