Re: limiting performance impact of wal archiving.

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Craig James
<craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Given the current quality of Linux code, I hesitate to use anything but
>> ext3
>> because I consider that just barely reliable enough even as the most
>> popular
>> filesystem by far.  JFS and XFS have some benefits to them, but none so
>> compelling to make up for how much less testing they get.  That said,
>> there
>> seem to be a fair number of people happily running high-performance
>> PostgreSQL instances on XFS.
>
> I thought the common wisdom was to use ext2 for the WAL, since the WAL is a
> journal system, and ext3 would essentially be journaling the journal.  Is
> that not true?

Yep, ext2 for pg_xlog is fine.