Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, clearly your looking at the bit is better than what we have now, so
> how about committing something that looks at the bit, but leave the
> default at zero. Then, let people test zero and non-zero delays and
> let's see what they find. That seems s
> Hmm. A further refinement would be to add a waiting-for-client-input
> bit to PROC, although if you have a fast-responding client, ignoring
> such backends wouldn't necessarily be a good thing. Notice that the
> pgbench transaction involves multiple client requests ...
>
> > Let's keep talkin
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, the change would have to show that doing the delay when some other
> backend has dirtied a buffer is _better_ than doing no delay.
Agreed. However, we have as yet no data that proves nonzero commit
delay is bad in the presence of multiple active ba
