RE: Results of testing WAL

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Zeugswetter Andreas SB'" <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Results of testing WAL
Date: 2000-11-10 17:43:33
Message-ID: 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D3170@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > Results: 5000 transactions took ~60 sec in 7.1, ~550 sec in
> > 7.0.2 with fsync and ~60 sec without fsync.
> >
> > So, seems that WAL added not just complexity to system -:)
>
> Wow, this sounds fantastic :-)
> I see my concerns where not justified.

Let's see first how justified are my hopes that WAL code
are bug free -:)

Vadim

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2000-11-10 18:05:01 Re: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language names
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-11-10 17:07:04 Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language names