Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and

From: Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and
Date: 2005-12-24 03:29:50
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.58.0512232225430.25023@eon.cs (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> writes:
> > I revised the idea with MINIMAL XLOG (instead of WITHOUT XLOG) like the
> > below. I think in this way, we can always gaurantee its correctness and
> > can always improve it.
>
> I think the entire idea is a waste of time anyway.  If we have the COPY
> case covered then we have done the only case that has any practical use
> AFAICS --- you don't use UPDATE or DELETE for bulk loads, and you don't
> use retail INSERTs either if you are striving for speed.
>

There are several posts on the list asking about NOLOGGING option
presented in Oracle. User may need it to do bulk updates against the
database. I don't think we plan to support it since it does not gaurantee
transaction semantics. But MINIMAL XLOG is something that we are afford to
do and not invasive change needed AFAICS.

Regards,
Qingqing

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg StarkDate: 2005-12-24 03:41:42
Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-24 03:00:39
Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group