Re: Some ideas about Vacuum

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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