> One of the things that's really attractive about the proposed mode is
> that it does *not* create a risk of data corruption 

Oh, ok.  That wasn't how I understood Simon's case.  

> I agree that we ought to look at some performance numbers before
> accepting the patch, but I think Josh's argument that this opens us
> up to major corruption problems is probably wrong. 

OK.  I've seen no performance numbers yet though.  It just seems to me that 
any performance patch proposal should start a discussion of what amount of 
performance we expect to gain.

Unfortunately, this is *not* a patch I can test on TPCE or SpecJ, because both 
of those have ACID requirements which I don't think this would satisfy.  I'd 
have to modify the benchmark, and I already have 4 performance patches queue 
which don't require that.

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to