| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging freezing |
| Date: | 2006-10-31 21:25:18 |
| Message-ID: | 8993.1162329918@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Huh, but the log would not be flushed for each operation that the vacuum
> logs. Only when it's going to commit.
It strikes me that the vacuum cost delay feature omits to consider
generation of WAL records as a cost factor. It may not be a big problem
though, as long as we can limit the number of records created to one or
two per page --- then you can see it as just a component of the "dirtied
a page" cost. If we made a separate WAL record for each tuple then it
could be important to account for.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-31 21:44:44 | Re: zic data updates |
| Previous Message | Joachim Wieland | 2006-10-31 21:21:51 | zic data updates |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2006-11-01 03:27:46 | Extended protocol logging |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-10-31 21:10:31 | Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging freezing |