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

Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and

From: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and
Date: 2005-12-29 16:14:37
Message-ID: 51082.68.143.134.146.1135872877.squirrel@www.dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian said:
> DROP would drop the table on a restart
> after a non-clean shutdown.  It would do _no_ logging on the table and
> allow concurrent access, plus index access.  DELETE is the same as
> DROP, but it just truncates the table (perhaps TRUNCATE is a better
> word).
>
> EXCLUSIVE would allow only a single session to modify the table, and
> would do all changes by appending to the table, similar to COPY LOCK.
> EXCLUSIVE would also not allow indexes because those can not be
> isolated like appending to the heap.  EXCLUSIVE would write all dirty
> shared buffers for the table and fsync them before committing.  SHARE
> is the functionality we have now, with full logging.


I an horribly scared that this will be used as a "performance boost" for
normal use. I would at least like to see some restrictions that make it
harder to mis-use. Perhaps restrict to superuser?

cheers

andrew





In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-29 16:24:28
Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-29 16:13:56
Subject: Re: localization problem (and solution)

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