From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: draft RFC: concept for partial, wal-based replication |
Date: | 2009-11-30 21:45:09 |
Message-ID: | 4B143CE5.40701@postnewspapers.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 30/11/2009 11:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer<craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> Just a side note: in addition to its use for partial replication, this
>> might have potential for performance-prioritizing databases or tablespaces.
>
>> Being able to separate WAL logging so that different DBs, tablespaces,
>> etc went to different sets of WAL logs would allow a DBA to give some
>> databases or tablespaces dedicated WAL logging space on faster storage.
>
> I don't think this can possibly work without introducing data corruption
> issues. What happens when a transaction touches tables in different
> tablespaces? You can't apply the changes out-of-order.
Argh, good point, and one that should've been blindingly obvious.
At a database level something like that may still be handy, though I
haven't the foggiest how one would handle the shared system catalogs.
--
Craig Ringer
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2009-11-30 21:49:14 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-30 21:43:21 | Re: OpenSSL key renegotiation with patched openssl |