On Apr 11, 2005 4:17 PM, Christian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Thomas Steffen wrote:
> >Is it possible to delay the fsync(), so that it > >only occurs after 10 or 100 transactions? > > No. Thought so, because the transaction log seems to happen at a low level, close to the fsync(). > How about batch operations, so that if you get an error, you rollback the > batch update, do only redo the updates that succeed up to that point, then > handle the failed update in it's own transaction. Yes, that is an option, but I either have to encapsulate the transaction in a function, or expose the complexity to the rest of the application. In both cases the use becomes more difficult than if I could just "set" single rows. > No. You would have to implement replication yourself using triggers maybe, > or perhaps update the pager layer to synchronise database contents to a > second file. I would like to go with a solution on a higher level. That reduces the risk of copying any corruption. Yes, I can give it a try on the application level. Thank's for your help, Thomas
