On Sat, 2010-09-18 at 14:42 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > * Per-transaction control. Some transactions are important, others are not. > > Low priority. > I see this as a 9.2 feature. Nobody I know is asking for it yet, and I > think we need to get the other stuff right first.
I understand completely why anybody that has never used sync replication would think per-transaction control is a small deal. I fully expect your clients to try sync rep and then 5 minutes later say "Oh Crap, this sync rep is so slow it's unusable. Isn't there a way to tune it?". I've designed a way to tune sync rep so it is usable and useful. And putting that feature into 9.1 costs very little, if anything. My patch to do this is actually smaller than any other attempt to implement this and I claim faster too. You don't need to use the per-transaction controls, but they'll be there if you need them. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
