On 2014-10-30 18:06:02 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 10/30/14, 2:13 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >On 10/30/2014 08:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >>I actually think we should *always* use the new code and not > >>add a separate wal_level=minimal branch. Maintaining this twice just > >>isn't worth the effort. minimal is used *far* less these days. > > > >I wouldn't go that far. Doing the wal_level=minimal optimization should be > >pretty straightforward. Note that it would be implemented more like CREATE > >INDEX et al with wal_level=minimal, not the way CREATE DATABASE currently > >works. It would not involve any extra checkpoints.
It's probably not that hard. I agree. Imo it's up to the person doing this conversion. We imo shouldn't require that person to develop both versions, but if they're interested in doing it: fine with me. > At my previous job, we used createdb -T copy_from_production > new_dev_database, because that was far faster than re-loading the raw SQL > dump all the time. It'd be a shame to have that need to write the copied data > 2x. IIRC that database was around 20MB. At that size not doing two immediate checkpoints will still be an order of magnitude or so bigger win. 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
