Jignesh Shah wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> >> >>> I asked on IRC and was told it is true, and looking at the C code it
> >> >>> looks true. ?What synchronous_commit = false does is to delay writing
> >> >>> the wal buffers to disk and fsyncing them, not just fsync, which is
> >> >>> where the commit loss due to db process crash comes from.
> >> >> Ah, I see. ?Thanks.
> >> > I am personally surprised it was designed that way; ?I thought we would
> >> > just delay fsync.
> >> That would require writing and syncing to be separable actions. ?If
> >> you're using O_SYNC or similar, they aren't.
> > Ah, very good point. ?I have added a C comment to clarify why this is
> > the current behavior; ?attached and applied.
> > --
> > ?Bruce Momjian ?<bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> ? ? ? ?http://momjian.us
> > ?EnterpriseDB ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? http://enterprisedb.com
> Though has anybody seen a behaviour where synchronous_commit=off is
> slower than synchronous_commit=on ? Again there are two cases here
> one with O_* flag and other with f*sync flags. But I had seen that
> behavior with PostgreSQL 9.0 beta(2 I think) though havent really
> investigated it much yet .. (though now I dont remember which
> wal_sync_method flag) . Just curious if anybody has seen that
I have trouble believing how synchronous_commit=off could be slower than
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Matthew Wakeling||Date: 2010-06-30 09:56:48|
|Subject: Re: ideal storage configuration|
|Previous:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2010-06-30 01:23:37|
|Subject: Re: pgbench results on a new server|