"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
> useful. Every transaction in the system is affected by the WAL status of
> other transaction working with the same tables. It doesn't serve any
> to have one transaction bypassing the WAL while everyone else does WAL
> 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
> 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
> 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
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 Lane||Date: 2005-12-24 04:06:21|
|Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and |
|Previous:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2005-12-24 03:41:42|
|Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and|