| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, 'David Steele' <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, "osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, 'Kyotaro Horiguchi' <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com" <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com" <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com" <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Disable WAL logging to speed up data loading |
| Date: | 2021-03-24 11:43:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20210324114357.GP20766@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com (tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com) wrote:
> From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
> > * tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com (tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com) wrote:
> > As for data loading tools, surely they support loading data into UNLOGGED
> > tables and it's certainly not hard to have a script run around and flip those
> > tables to LOGGED after they're loaded, and I do actually believe some of those
> > tools support building processes of which one step could be such a command
> > (I'm fairly confident Pentaho, in particular, does as I remember building such
> > pipelines myself...).
>
> Oh, Pentaho has such a feature, doesn't it? But isn't it a separate step from the data output step? Here, I assume ETL tools allow users to compose a data loading job from multiple steps: data input, transformation, data output, etc. I guess the user can't directly incorporate ALTER TABLE into the data output step, and has to add separate custom steps for ALTER TABLE. That's burdonsome and forgettable, I think.
None of the arguments presented here has done anything to change my
opinion that adding a 'none' WAL level is a bad idea.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-03-24 11:45:11 | Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-03-24 11:35:05 | Re: multi-install PostgresNode |