On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:10 PM, lars <lhofhansl@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 07/13/2011 08:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> "Kevin Grittner"<Kevin.Grittner@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
