* Mladen Gogala: > I have a logical problem with asynchronous commit. The "commit" > command should instruct the database to make the outcome of the > transaction permanent. The application should wait to see whether the > commit was successful or not. Asynchronous behavior in the commit > statement breaks the ACID rules and should not be used in a RDBMS > system. That's a bit over the top. It may make sense to use PostgreSQL even if the file system doesn't guarantuee ACID by keeping multiple checksummed copies of the database files. Asynchronous commits offer yet another trade-off here. Some people use RDBMSs mostly for the *M* part, to get a consistent administration experience across multiple applications. And even with asynchronous commits, PostgreSQL will maintain a consistent state of the database. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
