| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pierre C <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tadipathri Raghu <traghu(dot)dba(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB |
| Date: | 2010-03-26 14:00:38 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d11003260700i71f4c974o27b3f1db2f9ef609@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Pierre C <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> After fsync/syncronous_commit off
>
> Do not use fsync off, it is not safe. Who cares about the performance of
> fsync=off, when in practice you'd never use it with real data.
> synchronnous_commit=off is fine for some applications, though.
There are situations where it's ok, when all the data are
reproduceable from other sources, etc. for instance I have a
reporting server that is a slony slave that runs with fsync off. If
it does crash and I can recreate the node in an hour or so and be back
online. With fsync off the machine is too slow to do its job, and
it's not the primary repo of the real data, so it's ok there.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Yen | 2010-03-26 23:57:23 | why does swap not recover? |
| Previous Message | Pierre C | 2010-03-26 13:43:45 | Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB |