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 15:51:35 |
Message-ID: | 8784.1120751495@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:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
> Yes, this is basically another fsync-like option that isn't for
> production usage in most cases. Sad but true.
Just to make my position perfectly clear: I don't want to see this
option shipped in 8.1. It's reasonable to have it in there for now
as an aid to our performance investigations, but I don't see that it
has any value for production.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-07-07 15:59:41 | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |
Previous Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2005-07-07 15:49:03 | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |