| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Yoshimi Ichiyanagi <ichiyanagi(dot)yoshimi(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "menjo(dot)takashi(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp" <menjo(dot)takashi(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "ishizaki(dot)teruaki(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp" <ishizaki(dot)teruaki(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory |
| Date: | 2018-01-26 13:29:26 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZYfM=YgyTaZ21DWxGqdqRD_z8ZZ8mJteb46w1+zFLLaA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 8:54 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
<tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> Yes, that's pg_test_fsync output. Isn't pg_test_fsync the tool to determine the value for wal_sync_method? Is this manual misleading?
Hmm. I hadn't thought about it as misleading, but now that you
mention it, I'd say that it probably is. I suspect that there should
be a disclaimer saying that the fastest WAL sync method in terms of
ops/second is not necessarily the one that will deliver the best
database performance, and mention the issues around open_sync and
open_datasync specifically. But let's see what your testing shows;
I'm talking based on now-fairly-old experience with this and a passing
familiarity with the relevant source code.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | a.parfenov | 2018-01-26 13:54:08 | Configuring messages language on Windows |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2018-01-26 13:13:29 | Re: AS OF queries |