| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |
| Date: | 2015-07-10 10:44:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20150710104425.GC26521@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-07-10 13:38:50 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> In the long-term, I'd like to refactor this whole thing so that we never
> WAL-log any operations on a relation that's created in the same transaction
> (when wal_level=minimal). Instead, at COMMIT, we'd fsync() the relation, or
> if it's smaller than some threshold, WAL-log the contents of the whole file
> at that point. That would move all that
> more-difficult-than-it-seems-at-first-glance logic from COPY and indexam's
> to a central location, and it would allow the same optimization for all
> operations, not just COPY. But that probably isn't feasible to backpatch.
I don't think that's really realistic until we have a buffer manager
that lets you efficiently scan for all pages of a relation :(
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-07-10 10:47:55 | Re: Re: Removing SSL renegotiation (Was: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?) |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-07-10 10:38:50 | Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |