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+Tgmoa1JiY3r0H_VJMd3Fdi5DDmLHqyJ7EX=F+gyhxAvKvUjg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:08 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> It seems you're thinking deciding what to do based on an option that
> gets a boolean argument.  But what about making the argument be an enum?
> For example
>
> CREATE DATABASE ... WITH (STRATEGY = LOG);      -- default if option is omitted
> CREATE DATABASE ... WITH (STRATEGY = CHECKPOINT);
>
> So the user has to think about it in terms of some strategy to choose,
> rather than enabling or disabling some flag with nontrivial
> implications.

I don't like those particular strategy names very much, but in general
I think that could be a way to go, too. I somewhat hope we never end
up with THREE strategies for creating a new database, but now that I
think about it, we might. Somebody might want to use a fancy FS
primitive that clones a directory at the FS level, or something.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Merging statistics from children instead of re-sampling everything
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix DROP TABLESPACE on Windows with ProcSignalBarrier?