| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |
| Date: | 2021-06-16 06:48:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20210616064818.l5jhhwoigotof4uq@nol |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 03:27:21PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>
> If we are willing to maintain the two methods.
> Couldn't we just skip the checkpoints if the database is known to
> "clean", which means no page has been loaded for the database since
> startup? We can use the "template" mark to reject connections to the
> database. (I'm afraid that we also should prevent vacuum to visit the
> template databases, but...)
There's already a datallowconn for that purpose. Modifying template databases
is a common practice and we shouldn't prevent that.
But having the database currently doesn't accepting connection doesn't mean that
there is no dirty buffer and/or pending unlink, so it doesn't look like
something that could be optimized, at least for the majority of use cases.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-06-16 06:48:47 | Re: snapshot too old issues, first around wraparound and then more. |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-06-16 06:27:21 | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |