Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> I don't think we need a system-wide setting for that. I believe that
> >> the unlogged tables I'm working on will handle that case.
> > Aren't they going to be truncated at startup? If the entire system is
> > running without WAL, we would only need to do that in case of an
> > unclean shutdown wouldn't we?
> The problem with a system-wide no-WAL setting is it means you can't
> trust the system catalogs after a crash. Which means you are forced to
True, and in fact any postmaster crash could lead to curruption.
> use initdb to recover from any crash, in return for not a lot of savings
> (for typical usages where there's not really much churn in the
> catalogs). I tend to agree with Robert that a way to not log content
> updates for individual user tables is likely to be much more useful in
OK, TODO removed.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2010-06-24 08:25:23|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-06-23 20:43:06|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache |