| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alan Li <ali(at)truviso(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression? |
| Date: | 2009-06-22 14:20:51 |
| Message-ID: | 4A3F9343.4080409@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alan Li <ali(at)truviso(dot)com> writes:
>
>> How much concern is there for the contention for use cases where the WAL
>> can't be bypassed?
>>
>
> If you mean "is something going to be done about it in 8.4", the
> answer is "no". This is a pre-existing issue that there is no simple
> fix for.
>
>
>
I thought he was asking if we intend to provide for WAL bypass on a
table by table basis in future.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-22 14:24:49 | Re: BUG #4862: different results in to_date() between 8.3.7 & 8.4.RC1 |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-06-22 14:18:51 | Re: security checks for largeobjects? |