Re: Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs

Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 09:46:30AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Would it?  How wide is the "user and token" information?

> Sorry about the waste of time. I just noticed that the proposal is
> only for rows over 128 bytes. The token definition is:

> CREATE TABLE dspam_token_data (
>   uid smallint,
>   token bigint,
>   spam_hits int,
>   innocent_hits int,
>   last_hit date,
> );

> which is below the cutoff for the proposal.

Yeah, this illustrates my concern that the proposal is too narrowly
focused on a specific benchmark.
        regards, tom lane