Re: WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE?
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1136293726.5052.143.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 12:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Currently, CTAS optimization requires a heap_sync during ExecEndPlan. It > > would be easy enough to extend this so that it also works for INSERT, > > UPDATE and DELETE. > > If you tried to do it that way you'd break the system completely. Not > all updates go through the executor. > > I think it's a bad idea anyway; you'd be adding overhead to the lowest > level routines in order to support a feature that would be very seldom > used, at least in comparison to the number of times those routines are > executed. The current thinking seems to be that we should implement an ALTER TABLE RELIABILITY statement that applies to COPY, INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE. > If you tried to do it that way you'd break the system completely. Not > all updates go through the executor. Where would I put a heap_sync to catch all of the I, U, D cases? (Possibly multiple places). Or were you thinking of things like ALTER TABLE TYPE? Or perhaps inheritance? Best Regards, Simon Riggs
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: