| From: | "Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Markus Schiltknecht" <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers list" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Some ideas about Vacuum |
| Date: | 2008-01-16 19:10:40 |
| Message-ID: | 9362e74e0801161110g79215e72hf982e78e4e655991@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>
> For more usefulness, we'd need to keep databases more separate from each
> other than we do now. Databases would need to have their own transaction
> counters, for example. Shared relations would obviously need major
> changes for that to work. If we ultimately could separate databases so
> that you could take a filesystem copy of a single database, and restore
> it to another cluster, then per-database WAL and PITR would work.
>
> I agree to the fact that we can't have a separate WAL per database. Looks
like it makes more sense to create a seperate database cluster, instead of
adding one more database, if we want to make better use of available horse
power and if we don't have cross database queries.
Thanks,
Gokul.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Smet | 2008-01-16 19:26:19 | Re: Some ideas about Vacuum |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-01-16 18:41:45 | Re: Some ideas about Vacuum |