Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations
Date
Msg-id 21238.1028323749@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations  ("Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM> writes:
> So, we only have to use shared buffer pool for local (but probably
> not for temporary) relations to close this issue, yes? I personally
> don't see any performance issues if we do this.

Hmm.  Temporary relations are a whole different story.

It would be nice if updates on temp relations never got WAL-logged at
all, but I'm not sure how feasible that is.  Right now we don't really
distinguish temp relations from ordinary ones --- in particular, they
have pg_class entries, which surely will get WAL-logged even if we
persuade the buffer manager not to do it for the data pages.  Is that
a problem?  Not sure.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations
Next
From: "Mikheev, Vadim"
Date:
Subject: Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations