Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method

From: "Thomas F(dot) O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method
Date: 2005-08-10 07:11:48
Message-ID: 9A3EF56E-F63B-41B0-B9AF-734649994D2B@sitening.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I was recently witness to a benchmark of 7.4.5 on Solaris 9 wherein
it was apparently demonstrated that fsync was the fastest option
among the 7.4.x wal_sync_method options.

If there's a way to make this information more useful by providing
more data, please let me know, and I'll see what I can do.

--
Thomas F. O'Connell
Co-Founder, Information Architect
Sitening, LLC

Strategic Open Source: Open Your i™

http://www.sitening.com/
110 30th Avenue North, Suite 6
Nashville, TN 37203-6320
615-469-5150
615-469-5151 (fax)

On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> In summary, we added all those wal_sync_method values in hopes of
> getting some data on which is best on which platform, but having gone
> several years with few reports, I am thinking we should just choose
> the
> best ones we can and move on, rather than expose a confusing API to
> the
> users.
>
> Does anyone show a platform where the *data* options are slower
> than the
> non-*data* ones?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Huxton 2005-08-10 08:34:04 Re: Solving the OID-collision problem
Previous Message Adrian Maier 2005-08-10 06:50:28 Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method