| From: | "Jaime Casanova" <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alex Vinogradovs" <AVinogradovs(at)clearpathnet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David Wilson" <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Joshua Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: non-WAL btree? |
| Date: | 2008-08-01 21:43:12 |
| Message-ID: | 3073cc9b0808011443q5e88de3fxa683722f2796c6cd@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Alex Vinogradovs
<AVinogradovs(at)clearpathnet(dot)com> wrote:
> It's not that I expect a lot of improvement by having non-WAL
> indexing, it just sounds logical to me to have that, since
> index can be re-created fast enough during recovery,
and why you think that? if they are non WAL logged the only way to
re-create them after a recovery is with a REINDEX... dropping the
index and create after the bulk is just the same, i think...
--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. (593) 87171157
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Vinogradovs | 2008-08-01 21:49:43 | Re: non-WAL btree? |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2008-08-01 21:38:21 | Re: non-WAL btree? |