Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoY89CD8dbDF-+XY=aE6E6Vgd+Bz1scj-m5qL31nsVeNNQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints  (Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakrejda@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 1:58 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > I think we have consensus on STRATEGY. I'm not sure if we have
> > consensus on what the option values should be. If we had an option to
> > use fs-based cloning, that would also need to issue a checkpoint,
> > which makes me think that CHECKPOINT is not the best name.
>
> I think if we want LOG, it has tob e WAL_LOG instead of just LOG.  Was
> there discussion that the user _has_ to specify and option instead of
> using a default?  That doesn't seem good.

I agree. I think we can set a default, which can be either whatever we
think will be best on average, or maybe it can be conditional based on
the database size or something.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add tests for psql tab completion
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Teach pg_receivewal to use lz4 compression