Re: Remaining beta blockers
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Remaining beta blockers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM-w4HMCCvRxzJEJgXoZBOrv2svNvGX9DH7nMGkzrOO16orDfA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Remaining beta blockers (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Remaining beta blockers
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> wrote: > Clearly we would need to change how we do recovery of unlogged > relations to both allow unlogged matviews and keep the populated > state in pg_class. I don't think we can really make the "two > places" technique work, where the recovery state of the unlogged > matview is used to trigger a pg_class change. For one thing, it > was really messy -- far more so than current code. For another > thing, the matview would show as good until it was first opened, > which was nasty. Can I ask what is the design goal of unlogged relations? Are they just an optimization so you can load lots of data without generating piles of wal log? Or are they intended to generate zero wal traffic so they can be populated on a standby for example, or outside a transaction entirely? Because if it's the former then I don't see any problem generating wal traffic to update the pg_class entry. If they can satisfy the latter that gets a bit trickier. -- greg
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: