Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: Disable WAL completely
- From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
- To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: Disable WAL completely
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:48:01 -0500
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:48:55PM +0000, Matthew wrote: > If there's not much write traffic, the WAL won't be used much anyway. You still have checkpoints. > If you really don't care much about the integrity, then the best option is > probably to put the WAL on ramfs. Um, that will cause the WAL to go away in the event of device crash. Surely that's a bad thing? A
- References:
- Disable WAL completely
- From: Kathirvel, Jeevanandam
- Re: Disable WAL completely
- From: hubert depesz lubaczewski
- Re: Disable WAL completely
- From: Kathirvel, Jeevanandam
- Re: Disable WAL completely
- From: hubert depesz lubaczewski
- Re: Disable WAL completely
- From: Erik Jones
- Re: Disable WAL completely
- From: Tobias Brox
- Re: Disable WAL completely
- From: Matthew
- Disable WAL completely
- Prev by Date: strange plan choice
- Next by Date: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
- Previous by thread: Re: Disable WAL completely
- Next by thread: Re: Disable WAL completely
- Indexes: