On 2/10/22 07:32, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 9:31 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 10:59 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 9:25 PM Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: >>>> On 6/16/21 03:52, Dilip Kumar wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:01 PM Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Rather than use size, I'd be inclined to say use this if the source >>>>>> database is marked as a template, and use the copydir approach for >>>>>> anything that isn't. >>>>> Yeah, that is possible, on the other thought wouldn't it be good to >>>>> provide control to the user by providing two different commands, e.g. >>>>> COPY DATABASE for the existing method (copydir) and CREATE DATABASE >>>>> for the new method (fully wal logged)? >>>> This proposal seems to have gotten lost. >>> Yeah, I am planning to work on this part so that we can support both >>> methods. >> But can we pick a different syntax? In my view this should be an >> option to CREATE DATABASE rather than a whole new command. > Maybe we can provide something like > > CREATE DATABASE..WITH WAL_LOG=true/false ? OR > CREATE DATABASE..WITH WAL_LOG_DATA_PAGE=true/false ? OR > CREATE DATABASE..WITH CHECKPOINT=true/false ? OR > > And then we can explain in documentation about these options? I think > default should be new method? > >
The last one at least has the advantage that it doesn't invent yet another keyword. I can live with the new method being the default. I'm sure it would be highlighted in the release notes too. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
