From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
Subject: | Re: GiST insert algorithm rewrite |
Date: | 2010-12-13 17:35:14 |
Message-ID: | 4D065952.3030000@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 13.12.2010 19:19, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think you need to refactor the operation so that there's one WAL
>> record per child page, or something along that line. I concede this
>> might be diffcult :-(
>
> If it's only the backup blocks that matter couldn't you generate noop
> WAL records with just the full page image in them. Once all those are
> generated then generate the actual split operation and since all the
> pages have been written to wal since the last checkpoint they won't
> need any backup block slots.
>
> This would require surpressing any checkpoints between writing the
> first backup block and the final operation record. That might be
> pretty hard to do cleanly.
That would work, but it brings us back to square one
(http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4CCFEE61.2090702@enterprisedb.com)
It's not necessarily a bad idea, A capability to hold off checkpoints
might be the easiest way to do this, and other things in the future.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-13 17:37:33 | Re: unlogged tables |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-12-13 17:34:35 | Re: ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY ... NOT ENFORCED |