Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin

On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 03:01:07AM -0400, Luke Lonergan wrote:

> I guess we see the real culprit here.  Anyone surprised it's the WAL?

So what?  Are you planning to suggest people to turn fsync=false?

I just had a person lose 3 days of data on some tables because of that,
even when checkpoints were 5 minutes apart.  With fsync off, there's no
work _at all_ going on, not just the WAL -- heap/index file fsync at
checkpoint is also skipped.  This is no good.

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
"In a specialized industrial society, it would be a disaster
to have kids running around loose." (Paul Graham)