| 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: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, Andrew McMillan <andrew(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>, huang yaqin <hyq(at)gthome(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: good pc but bad performance,why? |
| Date: | 2004-04-08 01:31:18 |
| Message-ID: | 6788.1081387878@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> scott.marlowe wrote:
>>> There is no real need (or benefit) from having the database on a
>>> journalled filesystem - the journalling is only trying to give similar
>>> sorts of guarantees to what the fsync in PostgreSQL is doing.
>>
>> Is this true? I was under the impression that without at least meta-data
>> journaling postgresql could still be corrupted by power failure.
> It is false. ext2 isn't crash-safe, and PostgreSQL needs an intact file
> system for WAL recovery.
But it should be okay to set the filesystem to journal only its own
metadata. There's no need for it to journal file contents.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-04-08 01:33:34 | Re: good pc but bad performance,why? |
| Previous Message | Paul Thomas | 2004-04-07 23:48:35 | Re: statistics |