Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance

From: Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>
To: "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
Cc: Mikael Carneholm <Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)WirelessCar(dot)com>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance
Date: 2006-03-21 11:59:13
Message-ID: 1142942352.23597.8.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

> For the record, that's the wrong way round. For the data partitioning
> metadata journaling is enough, and for the WAL partition you don't need any
> FS journaling at all.

Yes, you're right: the data partition shouldn't loose file creation,
deletion, etc., which is not important for the WAL partition where the
WAL files are mostly recycled... right ?

Cheers,
Csaba.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-03-21 12:01:58 Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-03-21 11:58:35 Re: planner with index scan cost way off actual cost, advices to tweak cost constants?