Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tadipathri Raghu <traghu(dot)dba(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pierre C <lists(at)peufeu(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: 2010-03-29 06:45:44
Message-ID: dcc563d11003282345w6d3e7adbh6458b0f5a7c3d4a6@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Tadipathri Raghu <traghu(dot)dba(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Thank you for all the support.
>
> I have noticed one more thing here, that if you turn off the fsync and try
> to run the transaction than its breaking the currnet filenode and generating
> another filenode. Is it true that whenever you turn off or on the fsync the
> filenode will break and create one more on that table.

From what I understand, with fsync on or off the same stuff gets
written.  It's just not guaranteed to go out in the right order or
right now, but eventually.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tadipathri RaghuDate: 2010-03-29 07:05:50
Subject: Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB
Previous:From: Tadipathri RaghuDate: 2010-03-29 06:00:43
Subject: Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group