| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 21:49:57 |
| Message-ID: | 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E325185D6@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > 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
There is no any point to log them.
> 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.
It was not about any problem. I just mean that local buffer pool
still could be used for temporary relations if someone thinks
that it has any sence, anyone?
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2002-08-02 22:00:46 | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |
| Previous Message | Richard Tucker | 2002-08-02 21:40:26 | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |