Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZFiLnAVoZ7N7FeZNrUXk2n7hKiPZydXeZaQrqPHAUxcg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
Responses Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
>> I think what Heikki had in mind was that the copy in the index would be
>> the authoritative one, not some image in shared memory.  This'd imply
>> dirtying the root page on every insert, as well as increased contention
>> for the root page, so it might have performance problems.
>
> Not every insert, just every split. Which might still be a performance
> problem, but an order of magnitude smaller.

I think that might be acceptable from a performance point of view -
after all, if the index is unlogged, you're saving the cost of WAL -
but I guess I still prefer a generic solution to this problem (a
generalization of GetXLogRecPtrForTemp) rather than a special-purpose
solution based on the nitty-gritty of how GiST uses these values.
What's the difference between storing this value in pg_control and,
say, the OID counter?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_ctl idempotent option
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] COPY .. COMPRESSED