Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Дата
Msg-id 3153.1120709425@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> As far as #2, my posted proposal was to write the full pages to WAL when
> they are written to the file system, and not when they are first
> modified in the shared buffers ---

That is *completely* unworkable.  Or were you planning to abandon the
promise that a transaction is committed when we have flushed its WAL
commit record?

> Seems it is similar to fsync in risk, which is not a new option.

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.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Следующее
От: Bruno Wolff III
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC