Re: Possible Commit Syntax Change for Improved TPS - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Possible Commit Syntax Change for Improved TPS
Date
Msg-id 19310.1064932466@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Possible Commit Syntax Change for Improved TPS  (Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes:
> In the last exciting episode, seunosewa@inaira.com (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 running in FSYNC mode, so that the
> "really vital" stuff is sure to get committed quickly.  The other, on
> another port, has FSYNC turned off in its postgresql.conf file, and
> the set of "untrusted" files go there.

They would have in fact to be two separate installations (not two
databases under one postmaster).  There is no way to make some
transactions less safe than others in a single installation, because
they're all hitting the same WAL log, and potentially modifying the
same disk buffers to boot.  Anyone's WAL sync therefore syncs everyone's
changes-so-far.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: ADD FOREIGN KEY (was Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta)
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: developer web site down?