| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |
| Date: | 2005-07-07 04:10:25 |
| Message-ID: | 3153.1120709425@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> As far as #2, my posted proposal was to write the full pages to WAL when
> they are written to the file system, and not when they are first
> modified in the shared buffers ---
That is *completely* unworkable. Or were you planning to abandon the
promise that a transaction is committed when we have flushed its WAL
commit record?
> Seems it is similar to fsync in risk, which is not a new option.
The point here is that fsync-off is only realistic for development
or playpen installations. You don't turn it off in a production
machine, and I can't see that you'd turn off the full-page-write
option either. So we have not solved anyone's performance problem.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2005-07-07 04:16:54 | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-07 04:01:33 | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |