Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tadipathri Raghu
Subject Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB
Date
Msg-id 645d9d71003290005q2ba3b33fhca45d9e2f6067f3b@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB  (Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
Hi Scott,
 
Yes, May i know any particular reason for behaving this. Are its looking for any consistency. I havnt got any clear picture here.
Could you Please explain this..
 
Thanks & Regards
Raghavendra

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Tadipathri Raghu <traghu.dba@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Thank you for all the support.
>
> I have noticed one more thing here, that if you turn off the fsync and try
> to run the transaction than its breaking the currnet filenode and generating
> another filenode. Is it true that whenever you turn off or on the fsync the
> filenode will break and create one more on that table.

From what I understand, with fsync on or off the same stuff gets
written.  It's just not guaranteed to go out in the right order or
right now, but eventually.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB
Next
From: Matthew Wakeling
Date:
Subject: Re: Optimizer showing wrong rows in plan