Final(?) proposal for wal_sync_method changes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Final(?) proposal for wal_sync_method changes
Date: 2010-12-07 16:24:14
Message-ID: 23293.1291739054@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

After reviewing the two ongoing threads about fixing the wal_sync_method
fiasco, I think there is general agreement on these two points:

1. open_datasync shouldn't be the default choice
2. O_DIRECT shouldn't be forcibly bundled in with O_DSYNC/O_SYNC

What I suggest we do about the latter is to invent two new
wal_sync_method values,
open_datasync_direct
open_sync_direct
which are defined only on platforms that define O_DIRECT (and O_DSYNC
or O_SYNC respectively). That puts it in the hands of the DBA whether
we try to use O_DIRECT or not. We'll still keep the hard-wired
optimization of disabling O_DIRECT when archiving or walreceiver are
active.

Dropping open_datasync as the first-choice default is something we have
to back-patch, but I'm less sure about it being a good idea to
back-patch the rearrangement of O_DIRECT management. Somebody who'd
explicitly specified open_sync or open_datasync as wal_sync_method
would find its behavior changing under him, which might be bad.

Comments?

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-12-07 16:38:46 Re: pg_execute_from_file review
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-12-07 16:23:43 Re: pg_execute_from_file review