Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and

From: "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and
Date: 2005-12-24 03:50:57
Message-ID: doiggp$68a$ (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote
> But I don't see turning on and off the WAL on a per-transaction basis to 
> be
> useful. Every transaction in the system is affected by the WAL status of 
> every
> other transaction working with the same tables. It doesn't serve any 
> purpose
> to have one transaction bypassing the WAL while everyone else does WAL 
> logging
> for the same table; they're all going to lose if the system crashes.
Sure, so a minimal amount xlog is required. And to make finished transaction 
durable, issue a checkpoint.

> It seems to me the only rational way to approach this is to have a 
> per-table
> flag that sets that table to be non-logged. Essentially changing a table's
> behaviour to that of a temporary table except that other transactions can 
> see
> it. If the system crashes the table is truncated on system restore.
> The only problem I have with this is that it smells too much like MySQL 
> tables...
Table are related, so table A references table B. So set a per-table flag is 
hard to use or doesn't work.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-24 04:06:21
Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2005-12-24 03:41:42
Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group