Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Date
Msg-id 200507071559.j67Fxfa15633@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The point here is that fsync-off is only realistic for development
> >> or playpen installations.  You don't turn it off in a production
> >> machine, and I can't see that you'd turn off the full-page-write
> >> option either.  So we have not solved anyone's performance problem.
> 
> > Yes, this is basically another fsync-like option that isn't for
> > production usage in most cases.  Sad but true.
> 
> Just to make my position perfectly clear: I don't want to see this
> option shipped in 8.1.  It's reasonable to have it in there for now
> as an aid to our performance investigations, but I don't see that it
> has any value for production.

Well, this is the first I am hearing that, and of course your position
is just one vote.

One idea would be to just tie its behavior directly to fsync and remove
the option completely (that was the original TODO), or we can adjust it
so it doesn't have the same risks as fsync, or the same lack of failure
reporting as fsync.

--  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,
Pennsylvania19073
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC