Re: proposal: CREATE DATABASE vs. (partial) CHECKPOINT

From: David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: proposal: CREATE DATABASE vs. (partial) CHECKPOINT
Date: 2014-10-28 00:33:41
Message-ID: 1414456421505-5824522.post@n5.nabble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tomas Vondra wrote
> I mean, when we use database A as a template, why do we need to checkpoint
> B, C, D and F too? (Apologies if this is somehow obvious, I'm way out of
> my comfort zone in this part of the code.)

IIUC you have to checkpoint the whole cluster because it is not possible to
do checkpoint individual databases. There is only a single WAL stream and
while it could have source database markers I don't believe it does so there
is no way to have separate checkpoint locations recorded for different
databases.

Adding such seems to introduce a lot of book-keeping and both reload and
file size overhead for little practical gain.

David J.

--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/proposal-CREATE-DATABASE-vs-partial-CHECKPOINT-tp5824343p5824522.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2014-10-28 00:33:56 Re: Reducing lock strength of adding foreign keys
Previous Message Marti Raudsepp 2014-10-28 00:22:33 Re: alter user/role CURRENT_USER