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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Date: 2005-07-07 15:51:35
Message-ID: 8784.1120751495@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.

> Yes, this is basically another fsync-like option that isn't for
> production usage in most cases. Sad but true.

Just to make my position perfectly clear: I don't want to see this
option shipped in 8.1. It's reasonable to have it in there for now
as an aid to our performance investigations, but I don't see that it
has any value for production.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-07-07 15:59:41 Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Previous Message Kenneth Marshall 2005-07-07 15:49:03 Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC