At Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:18:04 -0800, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote in
> Hi,
>
> I suggest outlining what you are trying to achieve here. Starting a new
> thread and expecting people to dig through another thread to infer what
> you are actually trying to achive isn't great.
Agreed. I'll post that. Thanks.
> FWIW, I'm *extremely* doubtful it's worth adding features that depend on
> a PGC_POSTMASTER wal_level=minimal being used. Which this does, a far as
> I understand. If somebody added support for dynamically adapting
> wal_level (e.g. wal_level=auto, that increases wal_level to
> replica/logical depending on the presence of replication slots), it'd
> perhaps be different.
Yes, this depends on wal_level=minimal for switching from UNLOGGED to
LOGGED, that's similar to COPY/INSERT-to-intransaction-created-tables
optimization for wal_level=minimal. And it expands that optimization
to COPY/INSERT-to-existent-tables, which seems worth doing.
Switching to LOGGED needs to emit the initial state to WAL... Hmm.. I
came to think that even in that case skipping table copy reduces I/O
significantly, even though FPI-WAL is emitted.
> On 2020-11-11 17:33:17 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > FWIW this is a revised version of the PoC, which has some known
> > problems.
> >
> > - Flipping of Buffer persistence is not WAL-logged nor even be able to
> > be safely roll-backed. (It might be better to drop buffers).
>
> That's obviously a no-go. I think you might be able to address this if
> you accept that the command cannot be run in a transaction (like
> CONCURRENTLY). Then you can first do the catalog changes, change the
> persistence level, and commit.
Of course. The next version reverts persistence change at abort.
Thanks!
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
