Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Heikki Linnakangas escribi�:
>> Another issue is that reading WAL is inherently not very scalable. There's
>> only one WAL for the whole cluster, and it needs to be read sequentially,
>> so it can easily become a bottleneck on large systems.
> I have wondered why do we do it this way. Is there a problem with
> having one WAL per database, and another for general operations? This
> last WAL would have changes to shared tables, as well as global stuff
> like "create database" or "create tablespace".
It would only be useful to have one per spindle-dedicated-to-WAL, so
tying the division to databases doesn't seem like it'd be a good idea.
regards, tom lane
