Re: WAL logging volume and CREATE TABLE
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-08-03T02:46:55Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- /pgpatches/wal_level (text/x-diff)
Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > >> > Our docs suggest an optimization to reduce WAL logging when you are > >> > creating and populating a table: > >> > >> > ? ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/runtime-config-wal.html#RUNTIME-CONFIG-WAL-SETTINGS > >> > >> > ? ? In minimal level, WAL-logging of some bulk operations, like CREATE > >> > ? ? INDEX, CLUSTER and COPY on a table that was created or truncated in the > >> > ? ? same transaction can be safely skipped, which can make those operations > >> > ? ? much faster (see Section 14.4.7). But minimal WAL does not contain > >> > ? ? enough information to reconstruct the data from a base backup and the > >> > ? ? WAL logs, so either archive or hot_standby level must be used to enable > >> > ? ? WAL archiving (archive_mode) and streaming replication. > >> > >> > I am confused why we issue significant WAL traffic for CREATE INDEX? > >> > >> The point is that in minimal level we *don't*. ?We just fsync the index > >> file before committing. ?In higher levels we have to write the whole > >> index contents to the WAL, not only the disk file, so that the info > >> reaches the archive or standby slaves. > >> > >> Same for the other cases. > > > > I realize the need for WAL logging CREATE INDEX for non-'minimal' > > wal_level values. > > > > But the documentation states the WAL logging is reduced for CREATE INDEX > > by doing CREATE TABLE in the same transaction block. ?Why is this true? > > Why would the CREATE TABLE affect the "CREATE INDEX" WAL volume? > > > > I am wondering if the documention is correct about CLUSTER and COPY, but > > incorrect for CREATE INDEX. > > I think the problem here might be ambiguous wording. I believe that > the modifier "on a table that was created or truncated in the same > transaction" is intended to apply only to "COPY", but the way it's > written, someone (such as you) might be forgiven for thinking that it > applied to the larger phrase "CREATE INDEX, CLUSTER, or COPY". I have created a documentation patch to clarify this, and to mention CREATE TABLE AS which also has this optimization. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +