Jaime Casanova wrote: > On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Alex Vinogradovs > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It's not that I expect a lot of improvement by having non-WAL >> indexing, it just sounds logical to me to have that, since >> index can be re-created fast enough during recovery, > > and why you think that? if they are non WAL logged the only way to > re-create them after a recovery is with a REINDEX... dropping the > index and create after the bulk is just the same, i think...
They don't all have to be non-WAL, first off; it could be optional per index. Second, non-WAL would provide a benefit in the case the OP mentioned, and the only time it would be a detriment is in the event of a fault. Reindexing of non-WAL indexes could be automatic during recovery.
Non-WAL indexing is an option I would almost certainly take advantage of if it existed.
-Glen -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
