Tom Lane wrote:
> Alan Li <ali@truviso.com> writes:
>
>> How much concern is there for the contention for use cases where the WAL
>> can't be bypassed?
>>
>
> If you mean "is something going to be done about it in 8.4", the
> answer is "no". This is a pre-existing issue that there is no simple
> fix for.
>
>
>
I thought he was asking if we intend to provide for WAL bypass on a
table by table basis in future.
cheers
andrew
