| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tadipathri Raghu <traghu(dot)dba(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pierre C <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB |
| Date: | 2010-03-29 06:45:44 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d11003282345w6d3e7adbh6458b0f5a7c3d4a6@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Tadipathri Raghu <traghu(dot)dba(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Thank you for all the support.
>
> I have noticed one more thing here, that if you turn off the fsync and try
> to run the transaction than its breaking the currnet filenode and generating
> another filenode. Is it true that whenever you turn off or on the fsync the
> filenode will break and create one more on that table.
From what I understand, with fsync on or off the same stuff gets
written. It's just not guaranteed to go out in the right order or
right now, but eventually.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tadipathri Raghu | 2010-03-29 07:05:50 | Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB |
| Previous Message | Tadipathri Raghu | 2010-03-29 06:00:43 | Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB |