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.
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 |