Re: proposal: CREATE DATABASE vs. (partial) CHECKPOINT

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: proposal: CREATE DATABASE vs. (partial) CHECKPOINT
Date: 2014-10-28 00:17:27
Message-ID: 1787.1414455447@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> writes:
> So maybe we shouldn't cling to the WAL-logging approach too much. Maybe
> Heikki's idea from to abandon the full checkpoint and instead assume
> that once the transaction commits, all the files were fsynced OK. Of
> couse, this will do nothing about the replay hazards.

Well, I'm not insisting on any particular method of getting there, but
if we're going to touch this area at all then I think "fix the replay
hazards" should be a non-negotiable requirement. We'd never have accepted
such hazards if CREATE DATABASE were being introduced for the first time;
it's only like this because nobody felt like rewriting a Berkeley-era
kluge.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ali Akbar 2014-10-28 00:22:24 Re: Function array_agg(array)
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-10-28 00:15:01 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}