| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1? |
| Date: | 2010-11-17 03:07:49 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikc_O2w7+P=PU+s1_FkEaThobPtKydZzAJ9i12n@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
<places tongue firmly in cheek>
Gee, too bad there's not some other shared-memory implementation we could use...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Humair Mohammed | 2010-11-17 03:53:50 | Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-17 01:22:08 | Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1? |