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

Re: WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE?

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE?
Date: 2006-01-03 13:08:46
Message-ID: 1136293726.5052.143.camel@localhost.localdomain (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 12:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Currently, CTAS optimization requires a heap_sync during ExecEndPlan. It
> > would be easy enough to extend this so that it also works for INSERT,
> > UPDATE and DELETE.
> 
> If you tried to do it that way you'd break the system completely.  Not
> all updates go through the executor.
> 
> I think it's a bad idea anyway; you'd be adding overhead to the lowest
> level routines in order to support a feature that would be very seldom
> used, at least in comparison to the number of times those routines are
> executed.

The current thinking seems to be that we should implement an ALTER TABLE
RELIABILITY statement that applies to COPY, INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE.

> If you tried to do it that way you'd break the system completely.  Not
> all updates go through the executor.

Where would I put a heap_sync to catch all of the I, U, D cases?
(Possibly multiple places).

Or were you thinking of things like ALTER TABLE TYPE?
Or perhaps inheritance?

Best Regards, Simon Riggs






In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-01-03 15:45:21
Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2006-01-03 09:54:57
Subject: Re: Stats collector performance improvement

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