Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> Many databases offer this feature. The submitter asked for it,
> >
> > Actually he didn't --- AFAICS you misinterpreted the thread completely.
> > The original suggestion was that we might be able to exploit a
> > transactional filesystem to improve performance *without* sacrificing
> > any correctness guarantees. Delayed fsync has nothing to do with that.
> >
> > (I'm dubious whether there's any performance improvement to be had that
> > would be worth the code uglification involved, since we're surely not
> > going to *require* a transactional filesystem and so two very different
> > code paths seem to be needed. But it's at least something to think about.)
>
> Just to expand on the 'dubiousness' ... remember awhile back when I worked
> through the 'no-WAL' version of PostgreSQL to test loading a database with
> WAL disabled? The performance improvements on loading a database weren't
> enough, I seem to recall, to warrant getting rid of WAL altogether ... so
> I can't see 'delayed WAL' being faster then 'no WAL' ...
Uh, you mean fsync isn't a performance hit as it once was?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073