| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |
| Date: | 2021-06-15 13:31:22 |
| Message-ID: | acee54b1-ec84-2b29-501c-47604a5e2820@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/15/21 8:04 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> Yeah, WAL-logging the contents of the source database would certainly
> be less weird than the current system. As Julien also pointed out, the
> question is, are there people using on "CREATE DATABASE foo TEMPLATE
> bar" to copy a large source database, on the premise that it's fast
> because it skips WAL-logging?
I'm 100% certain there are. It's not even a niche case.
>
> In principle, we could have both mechanisms, and use the new
> WAL-logged system if the database is small, and the old system with
> checkpoints if it's large. But I don't like idea of having to maintain
> both.
>
>
Rather than use size, I'd be inclined to say use this if the source
database is marked as a template, and use the copydir approach for
anything that isn't.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-15 13:49:24 | Re: unnesting multirange data types |
| Previous Message | Isaac Morland | 2021-06-15 13:30:51 | Re: [PATCH] expand the units that pg_size_pretty supports on output |