Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Re: Keeping separate WAL segments for each database
2010/6/30 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes: >> You need to make sure not only that you replay commit records in >> order, but also that, for example, you don't replay an >> XLOG_HEAP2_CLEAN record too early. > > Hm, good point. That probably means that you *do* need fencepost > records, and furthermore that you might need an interlock to ensure that > you get the fencepost in early enough on the other stream. Ugh --- > there goes your concurrency. > > What about having a single WAL stream for all commit records (thereby > avoiding any possible xact-serialization funnies) and other WAL records > divided up among multiple streams in some fashion or other? A commit > record would bear minimum-LSN pointers for all the streams that its > transaction had written to. Things like HEAP_CLEAN records would bear > minimum-LSN pointers for the commit stream. Workable? I don't see why not. Of course, the performance of any of these ideas is another question altogether... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
In response to
- Re: Keeping separate WAL segments for each database at 2010-07-01 02:21:52 from Tom Lane
pgsql-hackers by date
Next: From: Heikki Linnakangas Date: 2010-07-03 11:59:10 Subject: Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay Previous: From: Mike Fowler Date: 2010-07-03 08:26:12 Subject: Re: Issue: Deprecation of the XML2 module'xml_is_well_formed' function