Re: Should commit_delay be PGC_SIGHUP? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Should commit_delay be PGC_SIGHUP?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoY4r2=KM4jg6Cj3_jyJQwMZUYRb9H_Ymgi=6PBh4T==qA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should commit_delay be PGC_SIGHUP?  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Should commit_delay be PGC_SIGHUP?  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Hmm.  If a malicious user could hurt performance for other sessions with
>> a bad setting of commit_delay, then USERSET is clearly a bad idea.
>> But it still seems like it could be SUSET rather than SIGHUP.
>
> Agreed; everybody gets what they want. Committed.

This is fine with me, too, and I agree that it's warranted... but your
commit message supposes that this behavior is new in 9.3, and I think
it dates to 9.2.  I'm not inclined to think the issue is serious
enough to back-patch (and risk breaking current installations) but I
thought that it worth mentioning....

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Should commit_delay be PGC_SIGHUP?
Next
From: Ants Aasma
Date:
Subject: Re: Page replacement algorithm in buffer cache