Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> writes:
> Just a side note: in addition to its use for partial replication, this
> might have potential for performance-prioritizing databases or tablespaces.
> Being able to separate WAL logging so that different DBs, tablespaces,
> etc went to different sets of WAL logs would allow a DBA to give some
> databases or tablespaces dedicated WAL logging space on faster storage.
I don't think this can possibly work without introducing data corruption
issues. What happens when a transaction touches tables in different
tablespaces? You can't apply the changes out-of-order.
regards, tom lane