> > > For more usefulness, we'd need to keep databases more separate from each > other than we do now. Databases would need to have their own transaction > counters, for example. Shared relations would obviously need major > changes for that to work. If we ultimately could separate databases so > that you could take a filesystem copy of a single database, and restore > it to another cluster, then per-database WAL and PITR would work. > > I agree to the fact that we can't have a separate WAL per database. Looks like it makes more sense to create a seperate database cluster, instead of adding one more database, if we want to make better use of available horse power and if we don't have cross database queries.
Thanks, Gokul.
