| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree |
| Date: | 2013-07-01 18:16:55 |
| Message-ID: | 3527.1372702615@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> So the question is, do we take the overhead of the new index (which
> means overhead on DML operations -- supposedly rare) or do we take the
> overhead of larger WAL records (which means overhead on all DDL
> operations)?
> Note we can make either thing apply to only people running logical
> replication.
I don't believe you can have or not have an index on pg_class as easily
as all that. The choice would have to be frozen at initdb time, so
people would have to pay the overhead if they thought there was even a
small possibility that they'd want logical replication later.
Flipping the content of WAL records might not be a terribly simple thing
to do either, but at least in principle it could be done during a
postmaster restart, without initdb.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2013-07-01 18:17:26 | Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-07-01 17:56:53 | Re: changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree |