Re: Buffer Cache question.... - Mailing list pgsql-general

From scott.marlowe
Subject Re: Buffer Cache question....
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.33.0304301508380.19726-100000@css120.ihs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Buffer Cache question....  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Buffer Cache question....  (Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>)
List pgsql-general
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Medi Montaseri wrote:
> > I am using PG 7.2 with fsync truned on but still need a more immediate
> > write thru.
> > Does PG uses the fsync (or open_sync, etc) just for the WAL or for
> > tables as well ?
>
> Just for WAL.
>
> > I understand the consequence of limiting buffer cache but my application
> > cares more about
> > integrity than performance. I'd like to be able to write the data to the
> > physical storage ASAP,
> > or ideally 100% in sync mode.
> >
> > I have found that by reducing the checkpoint parameters I can write the
> > data to disk sooner.
> > For example
> >
> > checkpoint_segments = 1
> > checkpoint_timeout = 30
> >
> > What else do I have to work with....?
>
> PostgreSQL is already 100% reliable (pull plug and see) so I don't see
> any value to changing those parameters.

What about commit_siblings and commit_delay?  I haven't really played a
lot with those.  I would think increasing the commit delay and the number
of siblings should give better, but slightly bursty performance.


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From:
Date:
Subject: Querying the last value of all sequences
Next
From: jd@commandprompt.com (Joshua Drake)
Date:
Subject: Re: Upgrade to RedHat 9.0 broke PostgreSQL