On 2014-01-16 10:35:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > I don't really see much difficulty in determining what's a utility > > command and what not for the purpose of this? All utility commands which > > create WAL in O(table_size) or worse. > > By that definition, INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE can all be "utility > commands". So would a full-table-scan SELECT, if it's unfortunate > enough to run into a lot of hint-setting or HOT-pruning work.
Well, I said *utility* command. So everything processed by ProcessUtility() generating WAL like that. > I think possibly a more productive approach to this would be to treat > it as a session-level GUC setting, rather than hard-wiring it to affect > certain commands and not others. Do you see a reasonable way to implement this generically for all commands? I don't. We shouldn't let the the need for generic resource control stop us from providing some for of resource control for a consistent subset of commands. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
