Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> That's two people now who have called the idea "silly" without even a hint
>> of a supporting argument. Why would it be "silly" to improve the
>> performance of a highly valuable tool set without compromising its utility?
>
> Because it's the size of the WAL files that kills most people, and not
> putting the index updates into WAL files would be a hack I wouldn't
> trust, and having them on the otherside but not adding them is just
> wasting space? Cause maybe, you didn't explain everything as clearly
> as you could, and I made assumptions based on your incomplete
> description?
I've re-read my original email and I just can't see how anybody got the
idea I was suggesting to not WAL record index changes. That would be
insanity IMO.
So, to be clear, I'm not proposing any change to the way data is written
to the WAL files.
-Glen