| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rick Gigger <rick(at)alpinenetworking(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and |
| Date: | 2006-02-07 09:40:37 |
| Message-ID: | 1139305237.1258.98.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 21:07 -0700, Rick Gigger wrote:
> I was thinking the exact same thing. Except the "and just fsync()
> dirty pages on commit" part. Wouldn't that actually make the
> situation worse? I thought the whole point of WAL was that it was
> more efficient to fsync all of the changes in one sequential write in
> one file rather than fsyncing all of the separate dirty pages.
This would apply to only a single relation, so would be just as
efficient a write to the database as to WAL. The proposed route is to
sync to the database, but not to WAL, thus halving the required I/O.
Yes, its designed for large data loads.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nikolay Samokhvalov | 2006-02-07 11:33:56 | Sequences/defaults and pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-02-07 09:38:57 | Re: Compiling UDF DLL under Win32 |