From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1? |
Date: | 2010-11-17 00:30:09 |
Message-ID: | 201011170130.10720.andres@anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 00:31:34 Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> > On 11/16/10 12:39 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> >> I want to next go through and replicate some of the actual database
> >> level tests before giving a full opinion on whether this data proves
> >> it's worth changing the wal_sync_method detection. So far I'm torn
> >> between whether that's the right approach, or if we should just increase
> >> the default value for wal_buffers to something more reasonable.
> >
> > We'd love to, but wal_buffers uses sysV shmem.
>
> Well, we're not going to increase the default to gigabytes
Especially not as I don't think it will have any effect after wal_segment_size
as that will force a write-out anyway. Or am I misremembering the
implementation?
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-17 00:51:28 | Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1? |
Previous Message | Mladen Gogala | 2010-11-17 00:05:05 | Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1? |