Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Jerry Jelinek <jerry(dot)jelinek(at)joyent(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling
Date: 2018-08-22 14:41:16
Message-ID: 20180822144116.kc7b6urjxatk6kf6@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018-Aug-22, Andres Freund wrote:

> On 2018-08-22 11:06:17 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> > I suppose that the use case that was initially proposed (ZFS) has not
> > yet been tested so we shouldn't reject this patch immediately, but
> > perhaps what Joyent people should be doing now is running Tomas' test
> > script on ZFS and see what the results look like.
>
> IDK, I would see it less negatively. Yes, we should put a BIG FAT
> warning to never use this on non COW filesystems. And IMO ZFS (and also
> btrfs) sucks badly here, even though they really shouldn't. But given
> the positive impact for zfs & btrfs, and the low code complexity, I
> think it's not insane to provide this tunable.

Yeah, but let's see some ZFS numbers first :-)

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-08-22 14:44:40 Re: BUG #15346: Replica fails to start after the crash
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-08-22 14:36:00 Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v12