Re: WAL

From: Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
To: 'Torsten Förtsch *EXTERN*' <tfoertsch123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WAL
Date: 2016-12-12 11:37:33
Message-ID: A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B539A4867@ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Torsten Förtsch wrote:
> if I do something like this:
>
> BEGIN;
> UPDATE tbl SET data='something' WHERE pkey='selector';
> UPDATE tbl SET data=NULL WHERE pkey='selector';
> COMMIT;
>
> Given 'selector' actually exists, I get a separate WAL entry for each of the updates. My question is,
> does the first update actually hit the data file?

It should, yes.

> If I am only interested in the first update hitting the WAL, does it make sense to do something like
> the above in a transaction? Would that help to keep the table small in a high concurrency situation?
> The table itself has a small fillfactor. So, in most cases there should be enough space to do a HOT
> update. For that HOT update, is that second update setting data to NULL beneficial or rather adverse?

How could the second update *not* be WAL logged?

Maybe you could explain what you are trying to achieve.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

In response to

  • WAL at 2016-12-12 08:53:08 from Torsten Förtsch

Responses

  • Re: WAL at 2016-12-12 12:23:58 from Torsten Förtsch

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Torsten Förtsch 2016-12-12 12:23:58 Re: WAL
Previous Message t.dalpozzo@gmail.com 2016-12-12 09:07:35 Re: huge table occupation after updates