Re: 15,000 tables - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: 15,000 tables
Date
Msg-id 15739.1133463453@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 15,000 tables  (Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>)
Responses Re: 15,000 tables  (Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>)
List pgsql-performance
Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net> writes:
> Agreed.  Also the odds of fs corruption or data loss are higher in a
> non journaling fs.  Best practice seems to be to use a journaling fs
> but to put the fs log on dedicated spindles separate from the actual
> fs or pg_xlog.

I think we've determined that best practice is to journal metadata only
(not file contents) on PG data filesystems.  PG does expect the filesystem
to remember where the files are, so you need metadata protection, but
journalling file content updates is redundant with PG's own WAL logging.

On a filesystem dedicated to WAL, you probably do not need any
filesystem journalling at all --- we manage the WAL files in a way
that avoids changing metadata for a WAL file that's in active use.
A conservative approach would be to journal metadata here too, though.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Gavin M. Roy"
Date:
Subject: Re: 15,000 tables
Next
From: "Jeremy Haile"
Date:
Subject: Insert performance slows down in large batch