Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTing6fW66mdmwu3CKLEDOKZ+WQ-wNsiPFoXNwV==@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Heikki Linnakangas >> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> Hmm, the first idea that comes to mind is to use a counter like the >>> GetXLogRecPtrForTemp() counter I used for temp tables, but global, in shared >>> memory. However, that's a bit problematic because if we store a value from >>> that counter to LSN, it's possible that the counter overtakes the XLOG >>> insert location, and you start to get xlog flush errors. We could avoid that >>> if we added a new field to the GiST page header, and used that to store the >>> value in the parent page instead of the LSN. > >> That doesn't seem ideal, either, because now you're eating up some >> number of bytes per page in every GIST index just on the off chance >> that one of them is unlogged. > > On-disk compatibility seems problematic here as well. Good point. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: