Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Date: 2005-06-01 12:10:55
Message-ID: 1117627855.4772.21.camel@fuji.krosing.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On K, 2005-06-01 at 00:01 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Recent test results have shown a substantial performance improvement
> (+25%) if WAL logging is disabled for large COPY statements. This is to
> be expected, though has a price attached: losing the ability to crash
> recover data loaded in this manner.

Not only recover the DB itself but also having a hot standby (and
hopefully a read-only replica some time in the future).

> There are two parts to this proposal. First, when and whether to do this
> at all. Second, syntax and invocation.

I think this should be a decision done when creating a table, just like
TEMP tables. So you always know if a certain table is or is not
safe/replicated/recoverable.

This has also the advantage of requiring no changes to actual COPY and
INSERT commands.

-- 
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2005-06-01 12:38:39
Subject: Re: Tablespace-level Block Size Definitions
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2005-06-01 12:03:25
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group