| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |
| Date: | 2022-02-14 20:05:18 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY89CD8dbDF-+XY=aE6E6Vgd+Bz1scj-m5qL31nsVeNNQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 1:58 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > I think we have consensus on STRATEGY. I'm not sure if we have
> > consensus on what the option values should be. If we had an option to
> > use fs-based cloning, that would also need to issue a checkpoint,
> > which makes me think that CHECKPOINT is not the best name.
>
> I think if we want LOG, it has tob e WAL_LOG instead of just LOG. Was
> there discussion that the user _has_ to specify and option instead of
> using a default? That doesn't seem good.
I agree. I think we can set a default, which can be either whatever we
think will be best on average, or maybe it can be conditional based on
the database size or something.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-02-14 20:07:46 | Re: Teach pg_receivewal to use lz4 compression |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-02-14 20:01:04 | Re: [PATCH] Add tests for psql tab completion |