Re: [PoC] Non-volatile WAL buffer

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Takashi Menjo <takashi(dot)menjou(dot)vg(at)hco(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PoC] Non-volatile WAL buffer
Date: 2020-01-28 20:59:53
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaHDiznESbH1+JAZbezeHwu7EbKFcKKqsOj67-em7AVSg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 3:28 AM Takashi Menjo
<takashi(dot)menjou(dot)vg(at)hco(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> I think our concerns are roughly classified into two:
>
> (1) Performance
> (2) Consistency
>
> And your "different concern" is rather into (2), I think.

Actually, I think it was mostly a performance concern (writes
triggering lots of reading) but there might be a consistency issue as
well.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-01-28 21:00:35 Re: VALUES ROW(...)
Previous Message David Zhang 2020-01-28 20:59:30 Re: Making psql error out on output failures