| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |
| Date: | 2005-06-01 12:10:55 |
| Message-ID: | 1117627855.4772.21.camel@fuji.krosing.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On K, 2005-06-01 at 00:01 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Recent test results have shown a substantial performance improvement
> (+25%) if WAL logging is disabled for large COPY statements. This is to
> be expected, though has a price attached: losing the ability to crash
> recover data loaded in this manner.
Not only recover the DB itself but also having a hot standby (and
hopefully a read-only replica some time in the future).
> There are two parts to this proposal. First, when and whether to do this
> at all. Second, syntax and invocation.
I think this should be a decision done when creating a table, just like
TEMP tables. So you always know if a certain table is or is not
safe/replicated/recoverable.
This has also the advantage of requiring no changes to actual COPY and
INSERT commands.
--
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2005-06-01 12:38:39 | Re: Tablespace-level Block Size Definitions |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-06-01 12:03:25 | Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |