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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Date
Msg-id 8784.1120751495@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
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.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC