| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |
| Date: | 2019-11-22 12:21:31 |
| Message-ID: | 1f9a76fe-6f77-eb5f-9292-9b1c92f4f5bd@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-11-05 22:16, Robert Haas wrote:
> First, I'd like to restate my understanding of the problem just to see
> whether I've got the right idea and whether we're all on the same
> page. When wal_level=minimal, we sometimes try to skip WAL logging on
> newly-created relations in favor of fsync-ing the relation at commit
> time.
How useful is this behavior, relative to all the effort required?
Even if the benefit is significant, how many users can accept running
with wal_level=minimal and thus without replication or efficient backups?
Is there perhaps an alternative approach involving unlogged tables to
get a similar performance benefit?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-11-22 12:22:10 | Re: obsolete example |
| Previous Message | Leif Gunnar Erlandsen | 2019-11-22 11:26:59 | Re: pause recovery if pitr target not reached |