> > >It is not premature. We will need a WAL based restore for 7.1
> > >or we imho don't need to enable WAL for 7.1 at all.
> >
> > I missed your point here - why ?!
> > New backup/restore is not only result of WAL.
> > What about recovery & performance?
>
> Ok, recovery is only improved for indexes, no ?
> Performance must imho be worse in your first round
> (at least compared to -F mode). ^^^^^^^^ only
> There is room for improvement that was not there
> before WAL (like avoiding write calls, non-overwrite ...)
> but those are not implemented yet.
And what? If there will be no WAL with base functionality
now then there will be no additional WAL benefits (eg savepoints)
later. WAL based backup/reatore is one of additional WAL benefit.
*Hopefully* we'll be able to implement it now.
BTW, avoiding writes is base WAL feature, ie - it'll be
implemented in 7.1.
> Please correct me if I am wrong here, but imho we accept that
> slowdown, because we gain so much.
>
> > Hm, WAL is required for distributed transactions
> > and we are not going to have them in 7.1 - does it
> > also mean that we don't need to enable WAL in 7.1?
>
> No, but rollforward is currently the main feature, no ?
I'm going to rollback changes on abort in 7.1. Seems I've
mentioned both redo and UNDO (without compensation records)
AM methods many times.
> Does it make sense to ship WAL without using it's currently
> main feature ?
Sorry, but it's not always possible to have all at once.
But again, hopefully we'll have backup/restore.
Thanks to Philip.
(BTW, replication server prototype announced by Pgsql, Inc
could be used for incremental backup)
Vadim
