On K, 2005-06-01 at 09:16 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 22:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Recent test results have shown a substantial performance improvement > > > (+25%) if WAL logging is disabled for large COPY statements. > > > > How much of that is left after we fix the 64-bit-CRC issue? > > Well, I don't know. The I/O is the main thing I'm trying to avoid.
While avoiding IO is a good thing in general, WAL IO traffic can at least easily made parallel to other IO by allocating own disk for WAL. > > > Now, I would like to discuss adding an enable_logging USERSET GUC, > > > > [ fear and loathing ... ] > > OK. I needed to say the idea, to make sure we had considered it. I now > pronounce it dead and buried. > > > BTW, I'm sure you are the last one who needs to be reminded that > > any such thing breaks PITR completely. I don't think we do any WAlling of TEMP tables, so it may be easy to extend this to any table with 'NO_WAL' bit set. That would create kind of 'extended temp table' - unsafe but fast ;) -- Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
