Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Basically, under my plan, WAL would be unchanged. WAL's function is > crash recovery, and it would retain that. There would also be no > on-disk changes. I would use the command counter in certain cases to > identify savepoints. This is a pointer to the previous August thread, where your original proposal was posted, and some WAL/not WAL discussion took place. Just not to repeat the already mentioned points. Oh, it's google archive just for fun, and to not overload hub.org ;-) http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=200108050432.f754Wdo11696%40candle.pha.pa.us&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26selm%3D200108050432.f754Wdo11696%2540candle.pha.pa.us Regards, Haroldo.
pgsql-hackers by date:
Соглашаюсь с условиями обработки персональных данных
