On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 23:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 18:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> What does this accomplish other than adding syntactic sugar over a
> >> feature that really doesn't work well anyway?
>
> > This patch doesn't
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 18:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What does this accomplish other than adding syntactic sugar over a
>> feature that really doesn't work well anyway?
> This patch doesn't intend to implement group commit. I've changed the
> meaning of
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 18:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A prototype patch is posted to -patches, which is WORK IN PROGRESS.
> > [This patch matches discussion thread on -hackers.]
>
> What does this accomplish other than adding syntactic sugar over a
> fe
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A prototype patch is posted to -patches, which is WORK IN PROGRESS.
> [This patch matches discussion thread on -hackers.]
What does this accomplish other than adding syntactic sugar over a
feature that really doesn't work well anyway? I don't see any po
A prototype patch is posted to -patches, which is WORK IN PROGRESS.
[This patch matches discussion thread on -hackers.]
The following TODO items remain
1. discuss which process will issue regular XLogFlush(). If agreed,
implement WALWriter process to perform this task. (Yes, the patch isn't
fully
