Re: Two fsync related performance issues?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Paul Guo <pguo(at)pivotal(dot)io>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Two fsync related performance issues?
Date: 2020-05-18 18:26:55
Message-ID: 3750.1589826415@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Paul Guo <pguo(at)pivotal(dot)io> writes:
> table directories & wal fsync probably dominates the fsync time. Do we
> know any possible real scenario that requires table directory fsync?

Yes, there are filesystems where that's absolutely required. See
past discussions that led to putting in those fsyncs (we did not
always have them).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2020-05-18 18:48:44 Re: pgindent && weirdness
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-05-18 18:08:53 Re: Why is pq_begintypsend so slow?