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: (view raw or whole 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


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 © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group