Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option (patch)

2007-03-11 Thread Simon Riggs
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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option (patch)

2007-02-26 Thread Tom Lane
"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

Re: [PATCHES] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option (patch)

2007-02-26 Thread Simon Riggs
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

Re: [PATCHES] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option (patch)

2007-02-26 Thread Tom Lane
"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

[PATCHES] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option (patch)

2007-02-26 Thread Simon Riggs
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