| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 16:00:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-uXN=XUC4PbeSAP2_XR4NuqR=-UnS5fJ7stbN=Hsi1L0g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 9:17 PM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> Is it possible to see the WAL size generated by these two statements:
> UPDATE 70% of the tuple in the base table (dirty 70% of the shared
> buffers) && CREATE database using template DB (Actual test target).
> Just wanted to know if it can exceed the max_wal_size of 64GB.
I think we already know the wal size generated by creating a db with
an old and new approach. With the old approach it is just one WAL log
and with the new approach it is going to log every single block of the
database. Yeah the updating 70% of the database could have some
impact but for verification purposes I tested without the update and
still the create db with WAL log is taking almost the same time. But
anyway when I test next time I will verify again that no force
checkpoint is triggered.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker | 2022-02-14 16:08:42 | Re: bailing out in tap tests nearly always a bad idea |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-02-14 16:00:18 | Re: refactoring basebackup.c |