Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
От | Joshua D. Drake |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 42CC7493.4060907@commandprompt.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
>>Tom, I think you're the only person that could or would be trusted to >>make such a change. Even past the 8.1 freeze, I say we need to do >>something now on this issue. > > > I think if we document full_page_writes as similar to fsync in risk, we > are OK for 8.1, but if something can be done easily, it sounds good. > > Now that we have a GUC we can experiment with the full page write load > and see how it can be improved. Question, with this option if the power goes out will I just roll through the transaction logs like normal? Or are we talking the potential to have to use something like pg_resetxlog or similar? If it is just roll through the transaction logs then I have no problem with it, let the user decide the level of reliance they have. If it can cause actual, need to restore from backup level damage then it is a literall no go IMHO. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: