| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |
| Date: | 2005-06-01 22:37:51 |
| Message-ID: | 1117665472.4830.12.camel@fuji.krosing.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On K, 2005-06-01 at 18:05 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> What we could do is to do no-WAL automatically for empty tables (like
> when a database is first loaded),
You forget that some databases use WAL for PITR / replication and doing
it automatically there would surely mess up their replica.
How is index creation handeled if it is not logged in WAL ?
- is it not automatically WAL'ed ?
- Must one recreate indexes after PITR or failover ?
> and use the flag for cases where the
> tables is not zero pages. The fact is that database loads are a prefect
> case for this optimization and old dumps are not going to have that flag
> anyway, and automatic is better if we can do it.
--
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-06-01 22:39:59 | Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-01 22:37:07 | Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |