Josh Berkus wrote:
> Pierre,
>
> > Are there any plans in a future Postgresql version to support a special
> > fsync method for Reiser4 which will use the filesystem's transaction
> > engine, instead of an old kludge like fsync(), with a possibility of
> > vastly enhanced performance ?
>
> I don't know of any such in progress right now. Why don't you start it? It
> would have to be an add-in since we support 28 operating systems and Reiser
> is AFAIK Linux-only, but it sounds like an interesting experiment.
>
> > Is there also a possibility to tell Postgres : "I don't care if I lose 30
> > seconds of transactions on this table if the power goes out, I just want
> > to be sure it's still ACID et al. compliant but you can fsync less often
> > and thus be faster" (with a possibility of setting that on a per-table
> > basis) ?
>
> Not per-table, no, but otherwise take a look at the Background Writer feature
> of 8.0.
Actually the fsync of WAL is the big performance issue here. I added a
TODO item about it.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
