Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Date: 2001-03-15 21:40:10
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0103152238020.826-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane writes:

> However, I can actually make a case for this: we are flushing out
> performance bugs in a new feature, ie WAL.

I haven't followed the jungle of numbers too closely.

Is it not the case that WAL + fsync is still faster than 7.0 + fsync and
WAL/no fsync is still faster than 7.0/no fsync?

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-03-15 21:41:25 pgmonitor completed
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-03-15 21:39:35 Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC