Seun Osewa wrote:
I observed that in in many applications there are some transactions
that are more critical than others. I may have the same database
instance managing website visitor accounting and financial
transactions. I could tolerate the loss of a few transactions whose
only job is to
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 05:31:52AM -0700, Seun Osewa wrote:
The beauty of the scheme is that the WAL syncs which sync everyone's
changes so far would cost about the same as the WAL syncs for just
one transaction being committed. But when there are so many trans-
actions we would not have
Hi Christopher,
Just to go through your points.
COMMIT NOSYNC; -- (sacrifice durability of non-critical transaction
for overall speed). So, the question is what people, especially those
who have done DBMS work, think about this!
I think that whenever my organization cares THAT much about
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Christopher Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Seun Osewa) wrote:
So I want to ask, what if databases have a 'COMMIT NOSYNC;' option?
Another possibility in this would be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Seun Osewa) wrote:
COMMIT; -- COMMIT SYNC; (guarantees atomic, consistent, durable
write)
COMMIT NOSYNC; -- (sacrifice durability of non-critical transaction
for overall speed). So, the question is what people, especially those
who have done DBMS work, think about this!
I
In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Seun Osewa) wrote:
So I want to ask, what is databases have a 'COMMIT NOSYNC;' option?
Then we can really improve transaction-per-second performance for a
database that has lots of non-critical transactions while not
jeopardising the durability
Christopher Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Seun Osewa) wrote:
So I want to ask, what is databases have a 'COMMIT NOSYNC;' option?
Another possibility in this would be to have not one, but TWO
backends.
One database, on one port, is
