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

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
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 18:58:39
Message-ID: YgqmX7bW1vWFBX4x@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:27:10PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> 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.

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.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2022-02-14 19:15:09 Re: Fix overflow in justify_interval related functions
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-02-14 18:55:56 Re: Fix overflow in justify_interval related functions