Re: proposal: CREATE DATABASE vs. (partial) CHECKPOINT

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal: CREATE DATABASE vs. (partial) CHECKPOINT
Date: 2014-10-30 19:13:41
Message-ID: 54528DE5.90804@vmware.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/30/2014 08:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I actually think we should *always* use the new code and not
> add a separate wal_level=minimal branch. Maintaining this twice just
> isn't worth the effort. minimal is used *far* less these days.

I wouldn't go that far. Doing the wal_level=minimal optimization should
be pretty straightforward. Note that it would be implemented more like
CREATE INDEX et al with wal_level=minimal, not the way CREATE DATABASE
currently works. It would not involve any extra checkpoints.

- Heikki

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-10-30 19:19:09 Re: WAL format and API changes (9.5)
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2014-10-30 19:10:43 Re: proposal: CREATE DATABASE vs. (partial) CHECKPOINT