Re: Idea for improving speed of pg_restore

On 17 Sep 2003 at 0:16, Tom Lane wrote:

> "scott.marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
> > Not so sure on whether the foot gun is a good idea. We already have .22
> > calibre foot gun (fsync) that makes for pretty big improvements in load
> > speed, and we see people all the time on General and Performance running
> > production servers with it turned off. You know as well as I do the
> > second we make WAL optional, some people are gonna start running
> > production servers with it.
>
> Well, yeah, they will. On a noncritical server, is that a sin? I mean,
> if we offer fsync-off, it's not clear to me that offering WAL-off makes
> the difference between venial and mortal sin. Seems to me we're just
> putting the weapons in the display case. fsync = .22, WAL = .45,
> but you shoot your foot with either one it's still gonna ruin your day.

If somebopdy wants WAL effectively turned off, then can symlink WAL to a
ramdisk that has a GB under the carpet. That would offer all the "benefits" of
WAL being tunred off.

Why this new provision? Is it really that difficult to mount WAL on ramdisk
during reload?

See, we offer non-transaction mode mysql defaults to, already..:-)

Just a thought..

Bye
Shridhar

--
QOTD: "I used to go to UCLA, but then my Dad got a job."