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+TgmobiR3MTVknmrUFhKLKUpmihucyHJFxqrqkdj-cYqZ6cMA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:26 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> So do we have consensus to use (STRATEGY = LOG/CHECKPOINT or do we
> think that keeping it bool i.e. Is LOG_COPIED_BLOCKS a better option?
> Once we have consensus on this I will make this change and
> documentation as well along with the other changes suggested by
> Robert.

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.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Chapman Flack
Date:
Subject: Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: fixing bookindex.html bloat