From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1?
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 01:30:09 +0100
Message-ID: <201011170130.10720.andres@anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9058.1289950294@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <AANLkTi=n3zxiLNFhbpiN=JPQPwB=BhXf9iepw1KOEs8U@mail.gmail.com>
<4CE312D9.6030503@agliodbs.com>
<9058.1289950294@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 00:31:34 Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > On 11/16/10 12:39 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> >> I want to next go through and replicate some of the actual database
> >> level tests before giving a full opinion on whether this data proves
> >> it's worth changing the wal_sync_method detection. So far I'm torn
> >> between whether that's the right approach, or if we should just increase
> >> the default value for wal_buffers to something more reasonable.
> >
> > We'd love to, but wal_buffers uses sysV shmem.
>
> Well, we're not going to increase the default to gigabytes
Especially not as I don't think it will have any effect after wal_segment_size
as that will force a write-out anyway. Or am I misremembering the
implementation?
Andres
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: andres@anarazel.de, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, josh@agliodbs.com, greg@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1?
In-Reply-To: <201011170130.10720.andres@anarazel.de>
* 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