| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
| Date: | 2001-03-15 23:50:35 |
| Message-ID: | 3AB1554B.AF34116E@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Well, that's exactly *why* we need an overridable default. Or would you
> like to try to do some performance measurements in configure?
At this point I'm more comfortable with a compile-time option
(determined statically or in a configure compilation test, not a
performance test), rather than a GUC variable. But imho 7.1 will be nice
with either choice, and if you think that a variable will make it easier
for developers to do tuning from a distance (as opposed to having it
just confuse new users) then... ;)
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Warner | 2001-03-16 00:13:40 | Re: Performance monitor signal handler |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-03-15 23:13:00 | Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |