On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> But it is very effective at avoiding 4 out of the 5 writes you mention.
> For the "common case," would we not want to have (1) [WAL] and (2)
> [Writing the pre-frozen tuple]?
> If we only write the tuple (2), and don't capture WAL, then the COPY
> wouldn't be replicable, right?
Well, my answer is a question: how would you like it to work?
The way I coded it is that it will still write WAL if wal_level is
set, so it would be replicable. So it only works when writing to a
newly created table but is otherwise separate to whether WAL is
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2012-02-29 21:24:09|
|Subject: Re: LIST OWNED BY...|
|Previous:||From: Alexander Korotkov||Date: 2012-02-29 21:19:03|
|Subject: Re: Collect frequency statistics for arrays|