Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2005-12-27 kell 19:20, kirjutas Martijn van
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 11:00:51AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I think this brings up an interesting distinction, that having the NO
> > LOGGING switch per command doesn't make sense because it modifying the
> > table. It has to be a per-object switch, or something that operates
> > only on empty tables. This is the exact same distinction we talked
> > about for NO LOGGING COPY.
> I've thought of one other possibility, which is kind of at the extreme
> end of system implementation. Given the suggestion about not losing a
> whole table on unclean shutdown, how about using a single table, split.
> 1. When setting no logging flag, take exclusive lock and record
> filesize. This size is X.
> 2. From now on any data before X is read-only. So no updates. Any new
> data needs to be allocated at end, so no FSM either.
> 3. Any data added after X is not logged to xlog.
> 4. On unclean shutdown, truncate table to length X.
> 5. When logging is reenabled, set X back to infinity.
How would it work for indexes ?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2005-12-27 23:30:08|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Online backup vs Continuous backup|
|Previous:||From: Hannu Krosing||Date: 2005-12-27 22:41:57|
|Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and|