Re: proposal: CREATE DATABASE vs. (partial) CHECKPOINT

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От David G Johnston
Тема Re: proposal: CREATE DATABASE vs. (partial) CHECKPOINT
Дата
Msg-id 1414456421505-5824522.post@n5.nabble.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: proposal: CREATE DATABASE vs. (partial) CHECKPOINT  ("Tomas Vondra" <tv@fuzzy.cz>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Tomas Vondra wrote
> I mean, when we use database A as a template, why do we need to checkpoint
> B, C, D and F too? (Apologies if this is somehow obvious, I'm way out of
> my comfort zone in this part of the code.)

IIUC you have to checkpoint the whole cluster because it is not possible to
do checkpoint individual databases.  There is only a single WAL stream and
while it could have source database markers I don't believe it does so there
is no way to have separate checkpoint locations recorded for different
databases. 

Adding such seems to introduce a lot of book-keeping and both reload and
file size overhead for little practical gain.

David J.



--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/proposal-CREATE-DATABASE-vs-partial-CHECKPOINT-tp5824343p5824522.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Marti Raudsepp
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: alter user/role CURRENT_USER
Следующее
От: Noah Misch
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Reducing lock strength of adding foreign keys