From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Valentine Gogichashvili <valgog(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: BUG #7494: WAL replay speed depends heavily on the shared_buffers size |
Date: | 2013-08-28 12:34:58 |
Message-ID: | 521DEE72.7070002@vmware.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 28.08.2013 02:28, Valentine Gogichashvili wrote:
> Running this sproc on the master:
>
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.f()
> RETURNS integer
> LANGUAGE plpgsql
> AS $function$
> begin
>
> CREATE TEMP TABLE temp_table_to_test_replication AS
> SELECT s.i as id from generate_series(1, 100) as s(i);
> DROP TABLE temp_table_to_test_replication;
> RETURN 1;
> end;
> $function$
>
> leads to writing of WAL files. Is it an expected behavior? Is it expected
> that WAL files are filled when the only thing, that sproc is supposed to
> do is to create and drop a temporary table. Are these catalog changes?
Yep, creating/dropping temp tables are catalog changes, which are
WAL-logged.
- Heikki
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-08-28 13:21:45 | Re: BUG #7494: WAL replay speed depends heavily on the shared_buffers size |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-08-28 12:32:18 | Re: BUG #8404: JDBC block hot standby replication? |