On 30/11/2009 11:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer<craig@postnewspapers.com.au> writes:
>> Just a side note: in addition to its use for partial replication, this
>> might have potential for performance-prioritizing databases or tablespaces.
>
>> Being able to separate WAL logging so that different DBs, tablespaces,
>> etc went to different sets of WAL logs would allow a DBA to give some
>> databases or tablespaces dedicated WAL logging space on faster storage.
>
> I don't think this can possibly work without introducing data corruption
> issues. What happens when a transaction touches tables in different
> tablespaces? You can't apply the changes out-of-order.
Argh, good point, and one that should've been blindingly obvious.
At a database level something like that may still be handy, though I
haven't the foggiest how one would handle the shared system catalogs.
--
Craig Ringer