Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alan Li <[email protected]> writes:
>>> How much concern is there for the contention for use cases where the WAL
>>> can't be bypassed?
>>
>> If you mean "is something going to be done about it in 8.4", the
>> answer is "no". This is a pre-existing issue that there is no simple
>> fix for.
> I thought he was asking if we intend to provide for WAL bypass on a
> table by table basis in future.
I thought he was asking for a solution to the problem of WALInsertLock
contention. In any case, we have "WAL bypass on a table by table basis"
now, don't we?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
