On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> On 11/30/10 7:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>>>> Apparently, testing for O_DIRECT at compile time isn't adequate. Ideas?
>>> We should wait for the outcome of the discussion about whether to change
>>> the default wal_sync_method before worrying about this.
>> Are we considering backporting that change?
>> If so, this would be another argument in favor of changing the default.
> Well, no, actually it's the same (only) argument. We'd never consider
> back-patching such a change if our hand weren't being forced by kernel
> changes :-(
> As things stand, though, I think the only thing that's really open for
> discussion is how wide to make the scope of the default-change: should
> we just do it across the board, or try to limit it to some subset of the
> platforms where open_datasync is currently the default. And that's a
> decision that ought to be informed by some performance testing.
If we could get a clear idea of what performance testing needs to be
done, I suspect we could find some people willing to do it. What do
you think would be useful?
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-12-01 13:53:12|
|Subject: Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-12-01 13:49:34|
|Subject: Re: KNNGIST next step: adjusting indexAM API|