Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1?

From: Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1?
Date: 2010-11-08 02:35:46
Message-ID: AANLkTinZ6Vw58v9_7tSPox-f1nmCyV1K4XOxuaJiDkgo@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 01:35, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Yes; it's supposed to, and that logic works fine on some other platforms.

No, the logic was broken to begin with. Linux technically supported
O_DSYNC all along. PostgreSQL used fdatasync as the default. Now,
because Linux added proper O_SYNC support, PostgreSQL suddenly prefers
O_DSYNC over fdatasync?

> Until you've
> quantified which of the cases do that--which is required for reliable
> operation of PostgreSQL--and which don't, you don't have any data that can
> be used to draw a conclusion from.  If some setups are faster because they
> write less reliably, that doesn't automatically make them the better choice.

I don't see your point. If fdatasync worked on Linux, AS THE DEFAULT,
all the time until recently, then how does it all of a sudden need
proof NOW?

If anything, the new open_datasync should be scrutinized because it
WASN'T the default before and it hasn't gotten as much testing on
Linux.

Regards,
Marti

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Cédric Villemain 2010-11-08 03:03:37 Re: questions regarding shared_buffers behavior
Previous Message Mark Rostron 2010-11-08 00:33:37 Re: questions regarding shared_buffers behavior