| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: CREATE DATABASE vs. (partial) CHECKPOINT |
| Date: | 2014-10-30 23:06:02 |
| Message-ID: | 5452C45A.1060607@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/30/14, 2:13 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 10/30/2014 08:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I actually think we should *always* use the new code and not
>> add a separate wal_level=minimal branch. Maintaining this twice just
>> isn't worth the effort. minimal is used *far* less these days.
>
> I wouldn't go that far. Doing the wal_level=minimal optimization should be pretty straightforward. Note that it would be implemented more like CREATE INDEX et al with wal_level=minimal, not the way CREATE DATABASE currently works. It would not involve any extra checkpoints.
+1
At my previous job, we used createdb -T copy_from_production new_dev_database, because that was far faster than re-loading the raw SQL dump all the time. It'd be a shame to have that need to write the copied data 2x. IIRC that database was around 20MB.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2014-10-30 23:15:33 | Re: TAP test breakage on MacOS X |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-10-30 22:32:28 | Re: TAP test breakage on MacOS X |