From: | Nikhil Shetty <nikhil(dot)dba04(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Recommended value for pg_test_fsync |
Date: | 2020-07-01 16:55:58 |
Message-ID: | CAFpL5VyfH9OENa1=wkVT6cYwiC4xWthqi4fKZFcYfeMUjbnF=w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi Bruce,
Thank you. We may stick with fdatasync for now.
Thanks and regards,
Nikhil
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 8:54 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 10:32:13AM +0530, Nikhil Shetty wrote:
> > Hi Bruce,
> >
> > Based on pg_test_fsync results, should we choose open_datasync or
> fdatasync as
> > wal_sync_method? Can we rely on pg_test_fsync for choosing the best
>
> I would just pick the fastest method, but if the method is _too_ fast,
> it might mean that it isn't actually writing to durable storage.
>
> > wal_sync_method or is there any other way?
>
> pg_test_fsync is the only way I know of, which is why I wrote it.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
>
> The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nikhil Shetty | 2020-07-01 17:06:25 | Re: Recommended value for pg_test_fsync |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2020-06-30 17:26:56 | Re: Recommended value for pg_test_fsync |