Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Hmmm. I seem to recall asking myself why xl_prev existed if it wasn't
> used, but passed that by. Damn.
I couldn't believe it'd been overlooked this long, either. It's the
sort of thing that you assume got done the first time :-(
> PreAllocXLog was already a reason to have somebody prepare new xlog
> files ahead of them being used. Surely the right solution here is to
> have that agent prepare fresh/zeroed files prior to them being required.
Uh, why? That doubles the amount of physical I/O required to maintain
the WAL, and AFAICS it doesn't really add any safety that we can't get
in a more intelligent fashion.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-06-01 02:47:30|
|Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-06-01 02:31:56|
|Subject: Re: Physical Tlist optimization still possible? |