| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jochem van Dieten <jochemd(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |
| Date: | 2005-06-01 15:43:24 |
| Message-ID: | 14461.1117640604@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Jochem van Dieten wrote:
>> Why only on an empty table? What is the problem with bypassing WAL on
>> any table as long as all files of that table are fsync'ed before
>> commit?
> Because adding rows to a table might modify existing pages, and if the
> COPY fails, you have to restore those pages to a consistent state, and
> make sure they are recovered for partial page writes, which we can't do
> without WAL. With an initially empty table, you can just throw away the
> file system file.
You have also got to think about the effects on the table's indexes ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-01 15:55:46 | Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-01 15:31:31 | Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |