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

From Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD
Subject Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Date
Msg-id E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57945BAFB@m0143.s-mxs.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
List pgsql-hackers
>>> 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.

Why not ? If your filesystem buffer size matches your pg page size,
and you have a persistent write cache, the option makes perfect sense.

Andreas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: James William Pye
Date:
Subject: Re: process crash when a plpython function returns
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC