From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Fast index build vs. PITR |
Date: | 2004-06-01 20:29:12 |
Message-ID: | 1086121751.3258.266.camel@stromboli |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 03:13, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> A completely different idea would be to log a "logical index creation",
> so that during normal recovery those entries are saved somewhere; after
> the rest of WAL recovery is done, the system is taken into a more normal
> post-recovery pre-usable state, on which those indexes are recreated
> from user data. This would be cheapest in WAL traffic, but probably
> it'll also require more code and new hooks in the startup mechanism.
> Also, it'd require examining later WAL entries that refer to the index
> and act accordingly (e.g. ignore the entry if it modifies the index, and
> forget the creation if it's a DROP INDEX command.)
>
There will be many ways to optimise recovery once we have PITR
working...
The current code does a straight replay of all changes. We can imagine
lots of different multi-pass or lookahead strategies for replaying xlog
records, but please lets wait awhile...
> Not that I like neither of those ideas really ... issuing normal WAL
> index creation traffic if PITR is active is certainly the easiest way.
I agree, certainly for now.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2004-06-01 20:31:22 | Re: Fast index build vs. PITR |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-06-01 20:17:13 | Re: Fast index build vs. PITR |