From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and |
Date: | 2005-12-24 04:06:21 |
Message-ID: | 12176.1135397181@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> It seems to me the only rational way to approach this is to have a per-table
> flag that sets that table to be non-logged. Essentially changing a table's
> behaviour to that of a temporary table except that other transactions can see
> it.
But what's the point? Nowhere in your scenario is there a reason why
we need to have multiple sessions working on the data being loaded.
So a temp table solves the problem perfectly. (Temp tables do span
transactions, just not sessions.)
I've got a fundamental philosophical objection to proposals in this
line, which I suppose I'd better state for the record. I don't like
inventing nonstandard SQL extensions or peculiar semantics just to gain
performance. It imposes extra complexity on users that they could do
without; the first time someone loses critical data because he didn't
fully understand the tradeoffs involved, he'll have a justifiable gripe.
I also don't like playing Oracle's or MySQL's game by inventing
proprietary syntax. We claim to believe in standards compliance, so we
should have a pretty high bar for inventing nonstandard syntax. When
the proposed change has a narrow use-case and is only going to yield
marginal improvements even in that case, I think we should just say no.
Bottom line: if we can't figure out how to do it transparently, I think
we haven't thought hard enough.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2005-12-24 04:19:01 | Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and |
Previous Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2005-12-24 03:50:57 | Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and |