Re: [GENERAL] WAL

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Albe Laurenz
Тема Re: [GENERAL] WAL
Дата
Msg-id A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B539A4867@ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на [GENERAL] WAL  (Torsten Förtsch <tfoertsch123@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [GENERAL] WAL
Список pgsql-general
Torsten Förtsch wrote:
> if I do something like this:
> 
> BEGIN;
> UPDATE tbl SET data='something' WHERE pkey='selector';
> UPDATE tbl SET data=NULL WHERE pkey='selector';
> COMMIT;
> 
> Given 'selector' actually exists, I get a separate WAL entry for each of the updates. My question is,
> does the first update actually hit the data file?

It should, yes.

> If I am only interested in the first update hitting the WAL, does it make sense to do something like
> the above in a transaction? Would that help to keep the table small in a high concurrency situation?
> The table itself has a small fillfactor. So, in most cases there should be enough space to do a HOT
> update. For that HOT update, is that second update setting data to NULL beneficial or rather adverse?

How could the second update *not* be WAL logged?

Maybe you could explain what you are trying to achieve.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "t.dalpozzo@gmail.com"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates
Следующее
От: Torsten Förtsch
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [GENERAL] WAL