On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 03:01:07AM -0400, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> I guess we see the real culprit here. Anyone surprised it's the WAL?
So what? Are you planning to suggest people to turn fsync=false?
I just had a person lose 3 days of data on some tables because of that,
even when checkpoints were 5 minutes apart. With fsync off, there's no
work _at all_ going on, not just the WAL -- heap/index file fsync at
checkpoint is also skipped. This is no good.
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
"In a specialized industrial society, it would be a disaster
to have kids running around loose." (Paul Graham)
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Michael Fuhr||Date: 2005-07-29 14:00:38|
|Subject: Re: BUG #1797: Problem using Limit in a function, seqscan|
|Previous:||From: Magno Leite||Date: 2005-07-29 12:52:45|
|Subject: BUG #1797: Problem using Limit in a function, seqscan|