splitting WAL (was RE: Providing anonymous mmap as an option of sharing memory) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD
Subject splitting WAL (was RE: Providing anonymous mmap as an option of sharing memory)
Date
Msg-id 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA496207A@m0114.s-mxs.net
Whole thread Raw
List pgsql-hackers
> In case of WAL per database, the operations done on a shared catalog from a
> backend would need flushing system WAL and database WAL to ensure such
> transaction commit. Otherwise only flushing database WAL would do.

I don't think that is a good idea. If you want databases separated you should
install more than one instance. That gives you way more flexibility.

Imho per database WAL is a deficiency, not a feature.

Andreas

PS: problem with mmap was, that it has no attached process count


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Commercial binary support?
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Build farm