Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations

From: Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, "J(dot) R(dot) Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(dot)com>, Richard Tucker <richt(at)multera(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations
Date: 2002-08-05 04:21:38
Message-ID: 1028521299.8190.751.camel@mouse.copelandconsulting.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, 2002-08-03 at 21:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> * Local bufmgr semantics are twiddled to reflect this reality --- in
> particular, data in local buffers can be held across transactions, there
> is no end-of-transaction write (much less fsync). A TEMP table that
> isn't too large might never touch disk at all.

Curious. Is there currently such a criteria? What exactly constitutes
"too large"?

Greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-05 05:21:37 Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks
Previous Message Joe Conway 2002-08-05 04:19:22 Re: anonymous composite types for Table Functions (aka