From: Guoping Zhang <guoping.zhang@nec.com.au>
To: 'Guillaume Smet' <guillaume.smet@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: 'Guoping Zhang (E-mail)' <guopingz@nstc.nec.com.au>
Subject: Re: how unsafe (or worst scenarios) when setting fsync OFF for postgresql
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:18:08 +1000
Message-ID: <004301c66a83$234bd470$74304c93@eddy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1d4e0c10604270226s53e261e9m943bf44766c880bf@mail.gmail.com>
Hi, Guillaume,
Thanks for the reply.
I am using wal_sync_methods be open_datasync, which appear much faster than
'fdatasync'.
Regards,
Guoping
-----Original Message-----
From: Guillaume Smet [mailto:guillaume.smet@gmail.com]
Sent: 2006Äê4ÔÂ27ÈÕ 19:26
To: guoping.zhang@nec.com.au
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Guoping Zhang (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] how unsafe (or worst scenarios) when setting
fsync OFF for postgresql
Guoping,
On 4/27/06, Guoping Zhang <guoping.zhang@nec.com.au> wrote:
> We have to looking at setting fsync OFF option for performance reason,
Did you try the other wal sync methods (fdatasync in particular)? I
saw a few posts lately explaining how changing sync method can affect
performances in specific cases.
--
Guillaume
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: guoping.zhang@nec.com.au, guillaume.smet@gmail.com, guopingz@nstc.nec.com.au
Subject: Re: how unsafe (or worst scenarios) when setting fsync OFF for postgresql
In-Reply-To: <004301c66a83$234bd470$74304c93@eddy>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox