Re: non-WAL btree?

Jaime Casanova wrote:
 > On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Alex Vinogradovs
 > <AVinogradovs@clearpathnet.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...


They don't all have to be non-WAL, first off; it could be optional per
index.  Second, non-WAL would provide a benefit in the case the OP
mentioned, and the only time it would be a detriment is in the event of
a fault.  Reindexing of non-WAL indexes could be automatic during recovery.

Non-WAL indexing is an option I would almost certainly take advantage of
if it existed.

-Glen