splitting WAL (was RE: Providing anonymous mmap as an option of sharing memory)

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: splitting WAL (was RE: Providing anonymous mmap as an option of sharing memory)
Date: 2003-11-25 17:21:59
Message-ID: 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA496207A@m0114.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> In case of WAL per database, the operations done on a shared catalog from a
> backend would need flushing system WAL and database WAL to ensure such
> transaction commit. Otherwise only flushing database WAL would do.

I don't think that is a good idea. If you want databases separated you should
install more than one instance. That gives you way more flexibility.

Imho per database WAL is a deficiency, not a feature.

Andreas

PS: problem with mmap was, that it has no attached process count

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2003-11-25 17:23:06 Re: Build farm
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2003-11-25 17:13:16 Re: Commercial binary support?