Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Alex Vinogradovs
> <AVinogradovs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> It's not that I expect a lot of improvement by having non-WAL
>> indexing, it just sounds logical to me to have that, since
>> index can be re-created fast enough during recovery,
>
> and why you think that? if they are non WAL logged the only way to
> re-create them after a recovery is with a REINDEX... dropping the
> index and create after the bulk is just the same, i think...
They don't all have to be non-WAL, first off; it could be optional per
index. Second, non-WAL would provide a benefit in the case the OP
mentioned, and the only time it would be a detriment is in the event of
a fault. Reindexing of non-WAL indexes could be automatic during recovery.
Non-WAL indexing is an option I would almost certainly take advantage of
if it existed.
-Glen
