On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2014-03-04 12:54:02 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > On 2014-03-04 09:47:08 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > > Can't that be solved by just creating the permanent relation in a new > > > relfilenode? That's equivalent to a rewrite, yes, but we need to do that > > > for anything but wal_level=minimal anyway. > > > > Yes, that would work. I've tended to view optimizing away the > > relfilenode copy as an indispensable part of this work, but that might > > be wrongheaded. It would certainly be a lot easier to make this > > happen if we didn't insist on that. > > I think it'd already much better than today's situation, and it's a > required codepath for wal_level > logical anyway. So even if somebody > wants to make this work without the full copy for minimal, it'd still be > a required codepath. So I am perfectly ok with a patch just adding that. >
Then is this a good idea for a GSoC project ? I don't know very well this internals, but I am willing to learn and I think the GSoC is a good opportunity. Any of you are willing to mentoring this project? Regards, -- Fabrízio de Royes Mello Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL >> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br >> Blog sobre TI: http://fabriziomello.blogspot.com >> Perfil Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
