From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Some ideas about Vacuum |
Date: | 2008-01-16 16:52:53 |
Message-ID: | 24876.1200502373@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane escribi:
>> It would only be useful to have one per spindle-dedicated-to-WAL, so
>> tying the division to databases doesn't seem like it'd be a good idea.
> Keep in mind that there are claims that a write-cache-enabled
> battery-backed RAID controller negates the effect of a separate spindle.
Possibly true, but if that's the underlying hardware then there's no
performance benefit in breaking WAL up at all, no?
> My point, rather, is that with this sort of setup it would be easier to
> do per-database PITR shipping, and one database's WAL activity would not
> affect another's (thus hosting providers are happier -- high-rate
> customer A need not affect low-budget customer B).
You won't get far with that because of the shared catalogs. In
particular, most DDL operations these days touch pg_shdepend ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-01-16 16:54:43 | Re: to_char incompatibility |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-16 16:49:28 | Re: Transaction Snapshot Cloning |