From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | bruce(at)momjian(dot)us |
Cc: | noah(at)leadboat(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PG 13 release notes, first draft |
Date: | 2020-05-14 06:23:02 |
Message-ID: | 20200514.152302.1177850100727636120.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Wed, 13 May 2020 22:40:52 -0400, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote in
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 09:51:41AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Wed, 13 May 2020 11:15:18 -0400, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote in
> > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:56:33AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > It is just an more accurate (not an detailed) version of the
> > previously proposed description. If we simplify that, I choose to
> > remove explanation on wal_skip_threshold.
> >
> > How about this?
> >
> > WAL-logging is now skipped while all kinds of bulk-insertion, then
> > relations are sync'ed to disk at commit. Previously this was done
> > only for COPY operations, but the implementation had a bug that could
> > cause data loss during crash recovery.
>
> OK, I went with this text, stating WAL "generation" is skipped:
>
> Allow skipping of WAL for full table writes if wal_level is 'minimal'
> (Kyotaro Horiguchi)
>
> Relations larger than wal_skip_threshold will have their files
> fsync'ed rather than generating WAL. Previously this was done
> only for COPY operations, but the implementation had a bug that
> could cause data loss during crash recovery.
Although I can't help feeling it out-of-point a bit, it is right in
apperarance. So, I don't object it.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-05-14 06:27:37 | Re: SLRU statistics |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-05-14 06:17:59 | Re: Parallel copy |