Re: WAL logging of SELECT ... INTO command

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WAL logging of SELECT ... INTO command
Date: 2006-03-22 15:06:05
Message-ID: 16480.1143039965@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches pgsql-performance

"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
>> PITR wants all changes. Without PITR we can optimise certain logging
>> actions.

> The only change here is that we're creating a new table based on the
> results of a SELECT. If that SELECT doesn't use anything that's
> non-deterministic, then the machine doing the recovery should already
> have all the data it needs, provided that we log the SELECT that was
> used in the CTAS.

This is based on a fundamental misconception about the way PITR
log-shipping works. We log actions at the physical level (put this
tuple here), not the logical here's-the-statement-we-executed level.
The two approaches cannot mix, because as soon as there's any physical
discrepancy at all, physical-level actions would be incorrectly applied
to the slave database.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-03-22 15:14:34 Re: WAL logging of SELECT ... INTO command
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-03-22 13:19:10 Re: WAL logging of SELECT ... INTO command

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-03-22 15:14:34 Re: WAL logging of SELECT ... INTO command
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-03-22 14:34:55 Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performanceoptimization