Re: [PERFORM] [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers
От
Tom Lane
Тема
Re: [PERFORM] [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers
Дата
Msg-id
3914.1045196089@sss.pgh.pa.us
Ответ на
Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers (Kevin Brown)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
More benchmarking of wal_buffers "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [PERFORM] [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>
Re: [PERFORM] [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Kevin Brown writes: > What happens when the only transaction running emits more WAL log data > than wal_buffers can handle? A flush happens when the WAL buffers > fill up (that's what I'd expect)? Didn't find much in the > documentation about it... A write, not a flush (ie, we don't force an fsync). Also, I think it writes only a few blocks, not all the available data. Don't recall the details on that. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления
