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

Re: Decreasing WAL size effects

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
Cc: Kyle Cordes <kyle(at)kylecordes(dot)com>, pgsql <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Decreasing WAL size effects
Date: 2008-10-30 21:54:01
Message-ID: 87abclbvgm.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> writes:

> Now, it would be possible to have that less sensitive archive code path zero
> things out, but you'd need to introduce a way to note when it's been done (so
> you don't do it for a segment twice) and a way to turn it off so everybody
> doesn't go through that overhead (which probably means another GUC).  That's a
> bit much trouble to go through just for a feature with a fairly limited
> use-case that can easily live outside of the engine altogether.

Wouldn't it be just as good to indicate to the archive command the amount of
real data in the wal file and have it only bother copying up to that point? 

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com
  Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support!

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: ChristopheDate: 2008-10-30 21:57:58
Subject: Re: Decreasing WAL size effects
Previous:From: Kyle CordesDate: 2008-10-30 21:16:43
Subject: Re: Decreasing WAL size effects

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: ChristopheDate: 2008-10-30 21:57:58
Subject: Re: Decreasing WAL size effects
Previous:From: Alan HodgsonDate: 2008-10-30 21:28:38
Subject: Re: speed up restore from dump

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