Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Heikki Linnakangas escribió: >> Another issue is that reading WAL is inherently not very scalable. There's >> only one WAL for the whole cluster, and it needs to be read sequentially, >> so it can easily become a bottleneck on large systems.
> I have wondered why do we do it this way. Is there a problem with > having one WAL per database, and another for general operations? This > last WAL would have changes to shared tables, as well as global stuff > like "create database" or "create tablespace". It would only be useful to have one per spindle-dedicated-to-WAL, so tying the division to databases doesn't seem like it'd be a good idea. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match