On 11/16/10 12:39 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> I want to next go through and replicate some of the actual database
> level tests before giving a full opinion on whether this data proves
> it's worth changing the wal_sync_method detection. So far I'm torn
> between whether that's the right approach, or if we should just increase
> the default value for wal_buffers to something more reasonable.
We'd love to, but wal_buffers uses sysV shmem.
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-11-16 23:31:34|
|Subject: Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1? |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-11-16 23:10:12|
|Subject: Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1?|