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

Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB

From: Tadipathri Raghu <traghu(dot)dba(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(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 07:05:50
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Hi Scott,

Yes, May i know any particular reason for behaving this. Are its looking for
any consistency. I havnt got any clear picture here.
Could you Please explain this..

Thanks & Regards

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:

> 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: Matthew WakelingDate: 2010-03-29 11:17:50
Subject: Re: Optimizer showing wrong rows in plan
Previous:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2010-03-29 06:45:44
Subject: Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB

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