From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Revert default wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux 2.6.33+ |
Date: | 2010-11-05 20:16:40 |
Message-ID: | 896.1288988200@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 21:20, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> What's that got to do with it?
> I'm not sure what you're asking.
> Surely changing the default wal_sync_method for all OSes in
> maintenance releases is out of the question, no?
Well, if we could leave well enough alone it would be fine with me,
but I think our hand is being forced by the Linux kernel hackers.
I don't really think that "change the default on Linux" is that
much nicer than "change the default everywhere" when it comes to
what we ought to consider back-patching. In any case, you're getting
ahead of the game: we need to decide on the desired behavior first and
then think about what to patch. Do the performance results that were
cited show that open_dsync is generally inferior to fdatasync? If so,
why would we think that that conclusion is Linux-specific?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-11-05 20:27:21 | Query Plan Columns |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-11-05 20:15:30 | Re: ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name |