Re: performance of insert/delete/update

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>, PgSQL Performance ML <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: performance of insert/delete/update
Date: 2002-11-23 21:29:20
Message-ID: 200211231329.20384.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance


Tom,

> When you get right down to it, what we use fsync for is to force write
> ordering --- Unix kernels do not guarantee write ordering any other way.
> We use it to ensure WAL records hit disk before data file changes do.
>
> Bottom line: I wouldn't run with fsync off in a mission-critical
> database. If you're prepared to accept a risk of having to restore from
> your last backup after a system crash, maybe it's okay.

Thanks for that overview. Sadly, even with fsynch on, I was forced to restore
from backup because the data needs to be 100% reliable and the crash was due
to a disk lockup on a checkpoint ... beyond the ability of WAL to deal with,
I think.

One last, last question: I was just asked a question on IRC, and I can't find
docs defining fsynch, fdatasynch, opensynch, and opendatasynch beyond section
11.3 which just says that they are all synch methods. Are there docs?

--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-11-23 21:41:37 Re: performance of insert/delete/update
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-11-23 21:20:39 Re: performance of insert/delete/update

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-11-23 21:41:37 Re: performance of insert/delete/update
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-11-23 21:20:39 Re: performance of insert/delete/update