On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:56:33AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > > > Allow skipping of WAL for new tables and indexes if wal_level is > > 'minimal' (Kyotaro Horiguchi) > > > > Relations larger than wal_skip_threshold will have their files > > fsync'ed rather than writing their WAL records. Previously this > > was done only for COPY operations, but the implementation had a > > bug that could cause data loss during crash recovery. > > I see it. It is giving weight on improvement. Looks good the overall > structure of the description above. However, wal-skipping is always > done regardless of table size. wal_skip_threshold is an optimization > to choose which to use fsync or FPI records (that is, not WAL records > in the common sense) at commit for speed.
Well, as far as users are concerned, everything wrtiten to WAL is a WAL record. > So how about the following? > > All kinds of bulk-insertion are not WAL-logged then fsync'ed at > commit. Using FPI WAL records instead of fsync for relations smaller > than wal_skip_threshold. Previously this was done only for COPY > operations and always using fsync, but the implementation had a bug > that could cause data loss during crash recovery. That is too much detail for the release notes. We already will link to the docs. Why put it here? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
