| From: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1? |
| Date: | 2010-11-13 17:38:07 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=zPWqny3gSXf5yiyxh2RKO8fqGYkyPpj901ZSi@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 20:40, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The latter choice is the one that requires testing to prove that it is the proper and preferred default from the performance and data reliability POV.
>
> And, in fact, the game plan is to do that testing and see which default
> we want. I think it's premature to argue further about this until we
> have some test results.
Who will be doing that testing? You said you're relying on Greg Smith
to manage the testing, but he's obviously uninterested, so it seems
unlikely that this will go anywhere.
I posted my results with the simple INSERT test, but nobody cared. I
could do some pgbench runs, but I have no idea what parameters would
give useful results.
Meanwhile, PostgreSQL performance is regressing and there's still no
evidence that open_datasync is any safer.
Regards,
Marti
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-13 18:01:51 | Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-13 16:42:00 | Re: temporary tables, indexes, and query plans |