Re: fsync vs open_sync
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: fsync vs open_sync |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20017.1092085307@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | fsync vs open_sync (pgsql@mohawksoft.com) |
Ответы |
Re: fsync vs open_sync
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
pgsql@mohawksoft.com writes: > I did a little test on the various options of fsync. There were considerably more extensive tests back when we created the different WAL options, and the conclusions seemed to be that the best choice is platform-dependent and also usage-dependent. (In particular, it makes a huge difference whether WAL has its own drive or not.) I don't really recall why open_sync didn't end up among the set of choices considered for the default setting. It may be that we need to reconsider based on the behavior of newer Linux versions ... In any case, comparing open_sync to fsync is irrelevant, seeing that the current default choice on Linux is fdatasync. What you ought to be telling us about is the performance relative to that. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: