Re: WAL Rate Limiting

From: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WAL Rate Limiting
Date: 2014-01-16 18:14:33
Message-ID: CAMkU=1zCsR8FV=p5w2pms5UK5wXKbRDBu7Zc7GwPESk1B3MXTQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

>
> > I think the usecases that would want this for DML probably also wan this
> > to work for unlogged, temp tables.
>
> Huh? Unlogged tables generate *zero* WAL, by definition.
>

Transactions that only change unlogged tables still generate commit records
to WAL.

I don't think that amount of WAL is particularly relevant to this
discussion, but I was recently surprised by it, so wanted to publicize it.
(It was causing a lot of churn in my WAL due to interaction with
archive_timeout)

Cheers,

Jeff

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2014-01-16 18:18:05 Re: Why conf.d should be default, and auto.conf and recovery.conf should be in it
Previous Message Florian Pflug 2014-01-16 18:10:38 Re: [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)