Re: [PATCH] Revert default wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux 2.6.33+

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert default wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux 2.6.33+
Date: 2010-11-05 22:14:02
Message-ID: 4CD481AA.6030407@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> I think the original idea was that if you had a dedicated WAL drive then
> sync-on-write would be reasonable. But that was a very long time ago
> and I'm not sure that the system's behavior is anything like what it was
> then; for that matter I'm not sure we had proof that it was an optimal
> choice even back then. That's why I want to revisit the choice of
> default and not just go for "minimum" change.

What plaforms do we need to test to get a reasonable idea? Solaris,
FreeBSD, Windows?

--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-11-05 22:31:07 Re: [PATCH] Revert default wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux 2.6.33+
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-11-05 22:13:02 Re: "Make" versus effective stack limit in regression tests