| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST |
| Date: | 2010-12-17 19:48:58 |
| Message-ID: | 4D0BBEAA.7010008@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17.12.2010 21:32, Robert Haas wrote:
> I guess the question is whether it's right to conflate "table is
> unlogged" with "LSN is fake". It's not immediately obvious to me that
> those concepts are isomorphic, although though the reverse isn't
> obvious to me either.
The buffer manager only needs to know if it has to flush the WAL before
writing the page to disk. The flag just means that the buffer manager
never needs to do that for this buffer. You're still free to store a
real LSN there if you want to, it just won't cause any WAL flushes.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-17 19:58:12 | Re: proposal: FOREACH-IN-ARRAY (probably for 9.2?) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-17 19:43:21 | Re: proposal: FOREACH-IN-ARRAY (probably for 9.2?) |