| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |
| Date: | 2015-10-22 00:56:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQ3j5JOM2VT0MenkWvK5CN0ThMwru1c=kbVA81iBzJdyA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>> Thanks. For comparison, I wrote a patch to implement what I had in mind.
>>
>> When a WAL-skipping COPY begins, we add an entry for that relation in a
>> "pending-fsyncs" hash table. Whenever we perform any action on a heap that
>> would normally be WAL-logged, we check if the relation is in the hash table,
>> and skip WAL-logging if so.
>
> I think this wasn't applied, was it?
No, it was not applied.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2015-10-22 01:02:14 | Re: On columnar storage (2) |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2015-10-22 00:54:46 | Re: Making tab-complete.c easier to maintain |