Re: changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree
Date
Msg-id 3527.1372702615@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> So the question is, do we take the overhead of the new index (which
> means overhead on DML operations -- supposedly rare) or do we take the
> overhead of larger WAL records (which means overhead on all DDL
> operations)?

> Note we can make either thing apply to only people running logical
> replication.

I don't believe you can have or not have an index on pg_class as easily
as all that.  The choice would have to be frozen at initdb time, so
people would have to pay the overhead if they thought there was even a
small possibility that they'd want logical replication later.

Flipping the content of WAL records might not be a terribly simple thing
to do either, but at least in principle it could be done during a
postmaster restart, without initdb.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)