From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
Cc: | "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fast index build vs. PITR |
Date: | 2004-06-01 12:59:54 |
Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA40184D0EE@m0114.s-mxs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I think an actually implementable version of this would be:
>
> 1. Don't log any index operations at all in WAL.
>
> 2. When recovering from WAL, restore all the table contents by WAL
> replay. (This would of course include the system catalog contents that
> describe the indexes.) Then sit there and do a global REINDEX to
> rebuild all the indexes.
>
> This would gain a reduction of some percentage in WAL traffic, at the
> cost of a hugely expensive recovery cycle any time you actually needed
> to use the WAL. I guess this could be attractive to some installations,
> but I'm not sure very many people would want it ...
I think only the "global" part of it is not really acceptable. If we had a flag
for each index that marks it "inconsistent" reindexing only those that are
marked would be great.
Could we log a WAL record that basically only marks an index for deferred reindex
after WAL recovery ? During WAL replay all records for this index could be
ignored (this is not a must because of the post update page images in WAL,
the index would still stay inconsistent until reindex of course).
I think such a reindex step could also be responsible for those non-btree
indexes that don't fully support WAL (gist?).
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-06-01 13:42:46 | Re: Fast index build vs. PITR |
Previous Message | Bob.Henkel | 2004-06-01 12:56:05 | Re: Nested xacts: looking for testers and review |