From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] New INSTALL text file |
Date: | 2000-01-23 01:30:00 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0001221828060.3007-100000@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2000-01-20, Mike Mascari mentioned:
> There are only two things I would want to see different. The
> first is the example of running configure. Even though it is
> beyond silly to think that people will interpret step 4
> literally, I guarantee you some will, and will try to enter:
>
> "./configure [ options ]"
Good point.
> The only other thing is if somewhere there is a mention of the -o
> -F options for the backend, suggesting its possible use. Since
> fsync() is on by default, many people who don't dig into the docs
> and are just trying PostgreSQL to see if its a plausible solution
> may dismiss it out-of-hand for performance reasons. Even though I
> know robustness is the #1 criteria for a RDBMS, I personally
> believe fsync() should be *off* by default, but I know I'm in the
> minority.
This sounds like solicitation to bait-and-switch. As I understand it, the
official (at least as official as it gets around here) recommendation is
to leave fsynch on. Otherwise this would have to be discussed. I
furthermore believe that read only commands (SELECT) will no longer do an
fsynch in 7.0., so the incentive to turn it off is not so big anymore. ???
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-01-23 01:30:07 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Variable case database names |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-01-23 01:29:54 | Re: [HACKERS] New install doc |