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

Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tadipathri Raghu <traghu(dot)dba(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: 2010-03-30 14:43:27
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Tadipathri Raghu <traghu(dot)dba(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.

I don't know what you mean by a filenode.  Changing the fsync
parameter doesn't cause any additional files to be created or written.


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-03-30 14:57:44
Subject: Re: why does swap not recover?
Previous:From: Andy ColsonDate: 2010-03-30 14:05:21
Subject: Re: REINDEXing database-wide daily

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group