Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Alan Li <a...@truviso.com> writes: >>> How much concern is there for the contention for use cases where the WAL >>> can't be bypassed? >> >> If you mean "is something going to be done about it in 8.4", the >> answer is "no". This is a pre-existing issue that there is no simple >> fix for.
> I thought he was asking if we intend to provide for WAL bypass on a > table by table basis in future. I thought he was asking for a solution to the problem of WALInsertLock contention. In any case, we have "WAL bypass on a table by table basis" now, don't we? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers