| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Some ideas about Vacuum |
| Date: | 2008-01-16 16:22:57 |
| Message-ID: | 24423.1200500577@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Heikki Linnakangas escribi:
>> Another issue is that reading WAL is inherently not very scalable. There's
>> only one WAL for the whole cluster, and it needs to be read sequentially,
>> so it can easily become a bottleneck on large systems.
> I have wondered why do we do it this way. Is there a problem with
> having one WAL per database, and another for general operations? This
> last WAL would have changes to shared tables, as well as global stuff
> like "create database" or "create tablespace".
It would only be useful to have one per spindle-dedicated-to-WAL, so
tying the division to databases doesn't seem like it'd be a good idea.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-01-16 16:39:43 | Re: Some ideas about Vacuum |
| Previous Message | Roberts, Jon | 2008-01-16 16:17:39 | Re: Password policy |