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

Re: draft RFC: concept for partial, wal-based replication

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: draft RFC: concept for partial, wal-based replication
Date: 2009-11-30 21:45:09
Message-ID: 4B143CE5.40701@postnewspapers.com.au (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 30/11/2009 11:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer<craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>  writes:
>> Just a side note: in addition to its use for partial replication, this
>> might have potential for performance-prioritizing databases or tablespaces.
>
>> Being able to separate WAL logging so that different DBs, tablespaces,
>> etc went to different sets of WAL logs would allow a DBA to give some
>> databases or tablespaces dedicated WAL logging space on faster storage.
>
> I don't think this can possibly work without introducing data corruption
> issues.  What happens when a transaction touches tables in different
> tablespaces?  You can't apply the changes out-of-order.

Argh, good point, and one that should've been blindingly obvious.

At a database level something like that may still be handy, though I 
haven't the foggiest how one would handle the shared system catalogs.

--
Craig Ringer

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Aidan Van DykDate: 2009-11-30 21:49:14
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-11-30 21:43:21
Subject: Re: OpenSSL key renegotiation with patched openssl

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