| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | "J(dot) R(dot) Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(dot)com>, Richard Tucker <richt(at)multera(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |
| Date: | 2002-08-02 21:29:09 |
| Message-ID: | 21238.1028323749@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
> So, we only have to use shared buffer pool for local (but probably
> not for temporary) relations to close this issue, yes? I personally
> don't see any performance issues if we do this.
Hmm. Temporary relations are a whole different story.
It would be nice if updates on temp relations never got WAL-logged at
all, but I'm not sure how feasible that is. Right now we don't really
distinguish temp relations from ordinary ones --- in particular, they
have pg_class entries, which surely will get WAL-logged even if we
persuade the buffer manager not to do it for the data pages. Is that
a problem? Not sure.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Tucker | 2002-08-02 21:30:26 | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-02 21:25:28 | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |