From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 00:17:23 |
Message-ID: | 42CC7493.4060907@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>Tom, I think you're the only person that could or would be trusted to
>>make such a change. Even past the 8.1 freeze, I say we need to do
>>something now on this issue.
>
>
> I think if we document full_page_writes as similar to fsync in risk, we
> are OK for 8.1, but if something can be done easily, it sounds good.
>
> Now that we have a GUC we can experiment with the full page write load
> and see how it can be improved.
Question, with this option if the power goes out will I just roll
through the transaction logs like normal? Or are we talking the
potential to have to use something like pg_resetxlog or similar?
If it is just roll through the transaction logs then I have no problem
with it, let the user decide the level of reliance they have. If it can
cause actual, need to restore from backup level damage then it is a
literall no go IMHO.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oliver Jowett | 2005-07-07 00:48:57 | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-07-06 22:52:11 | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |