| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Move tablespace |
| Date: | 2010-04-21 01:03:53 |
| Message-ID: | 10238.1271811833@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Following patch writes a new WAL record that just says "copy foo to
> newts" and during replay we flush buffers and then re-execute the copy
> (but only when InArchiveRecovery). So the copy happens locally on the
> standby, not copying from primary to standby. We do this just with a
> little refactoring and a simple new WAL message.
And what happens to crash-recovery replay? You can't have it both ways,
either the data is in WAL or it's missing.
> Objections?
This is NOT the time to be rushing in marginal performance
optimizations. I don't think you've thought through all the corner
cases anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-21 01:13:09 | Re: Vacuum cancels autovacuum error message confusing? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-20 23:53:36 | Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication document improvements |