From: | Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | KONDO Mitsumasa <kondo(dot)mitsumasa(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)redhat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Logging WAL when updating hintbit |
Date: | 2013-11-19 16:48:52 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoAPMXs2yddg8n6-5kEXEBMWRX6ATLp3vzBT500_LHQ_wg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:54 PM, KONDO Mitsumasa
<kondo(dot)mitsumasa(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> (2013/11/15 19:27), Sawada Masahiko wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)redhat(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/14/2013 07:02 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
>>>
>>>> I attached patch adds new wal_level 'all'.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Shouldn't this be a separate setting? It's useful for storage which
>>> requires rewriting a partially written sector before it can be read
>>> again.
>>>
>>
>> Thank you for comment.
>> Actually, I had thought to add separate parameter.
>
> I think that he said that if you can proof that amount of WAL is almost same
> and
> without less performance same as before, you might not need to separate
> parameter in your patch.
>
Thanks!
I took it wrong.
I think that there are quite a few difference amount of WAL.
> Did you test about amount of WAL size in your patch?
Not yet. I will do that.
Regards,
-------
Sawada Masahiko
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Johnston | 2013-11-19 16:53:09 | Re: Suggestion: Issue warning when calling SET TRANSACTION outside transaction block |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-11-19 16:46:10 | Re: pre-commit triggers |