Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2010/6/23 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com> writes:
> >> > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> >> >> a) Eliminate WAL logging entirely
> >
> > If we elimiate WAL logging, that means a reinstall is required for even
> > a postmaster crash, which is a new non-durable behavior.
> >
> > Also, we just added wal_level = minimal, which might end up being a poor
> > name choice of we want wal_level = off in PG 9.1. ?Perhaps we should
> > have used wal_level = crash_safe in 9.0.
> >
> > I have added the following TODO:
> >
> > ? ? ? ?Consider a non-crash-safe wal_level that eliminates WAL activity
> >
> > ? ? ? ? ? ?* http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2010-06/msg00300.php
> >
> > --
>
> isn't fsync to off enought?
Well, testing reported in the thread showed other settings also help,
though the checkpoint lengthening was not tested.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
