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

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging freezing

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging freezing
Date: 2006-10-31 21:25:18
Message-ID: 8993.1162329918@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Huh, but the log would not be flushed for each operation that the vacuum
> logs.  Only when it's going to commit.

It strikes me that the vacuum cost delay feature omits to consider
generation of WAL records as a cost factor.  It may not be a big problem
though, as long as we can limit the number of records created to one or
two per page --- then you can see it as just a component of the "dirtied
a page" cost.  If we made a separate WAL record for each tuple then it
could be important to account for.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-10-31 21:44:44
Subject: Re: zic data updates
Previous:From: Joachim WielandDate: 2006-10-31 21:21:51
Subject: zic data updates

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Dave CramerDate: 2006-11-01 03:27:46
Subject: Extended protocol logging
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2006-10-31 21:10:31
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging freezing

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