On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:10 PM, lars <lhofha...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 07/13/2011 08:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> "Kevin Grittner"<kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes: >>> >>> ... Jeff does raise a good point, though -- it seems odd >>> that WAL-logging of this pruning would need to be synchronous. >> >> Yeah, we need to get to the bottom of that. If there's enough >> shared_buffer space then it shouldn't be. > > This thread has gotten long, let me try to compile all the relevant > information in one email. > > \d test > Table "lars.test" > Column | Type | Modifiers > --------------+---------------+----------- > tenant | character(15) | > created_by | character(15) | > created_date | date |
small aside here: try to avoid use of character(n) type -- varchar(n) is superior in every way, including performance (although that has nothing to do with your WAL issues on this thread). merlin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
