Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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 17:27:10
Message-ID: CA+TgmobiR3MTVknmrUFhKLKUpmihucyHJFxqrqkdj-cYqZ6cMA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:26 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> So do we have consensus to use (STRATEGY = LOG/CHECKPOINT or do we
> think that keeping it bool i.e. Is LOG_COPIED_BLOCKS a better option?
> Once we have consensus on this I will make this change and
> documentation as well along with the other changes suggested by
> Robert.

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.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2022-02-14 17:31:25 Re: fixing bookindex.html bloat
Previous Message Chapman Flack 2022-02-14 17:25:36 Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT