| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alan Li <ali(at)truviso(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression? |
| Date: | 2009-06-22 15:34:49 |
| Message-ID: | 1245684889.31430.131.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 11:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > I was thinking it might be beneficial to be able to defer writing WAL
> > until COPY is complete, so heap_sync would either fsync the whole heap
> > file or copy the whole file to WAL.
>
> What about indexes?
I was thinking we could do exactly as stated for the cases that would be
WAL-bypass now, but need to write WAL because XLogArchivingActive().
i.e. improve the exact case we are measuring here.
Yes, it is more complex than that for loading to existing tables.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brendan Jurd | 2009-06-22 16:28:49 | Re: BUG #4862: different results in to_date() between 8.3.7 & 8.4.RC1 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-22 15:31:45 | Re: security checks for largeobjects? |