Re: limiting performance impact of wal archiving.

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Given the current quality of Linux code, I hesitate to use anything but ext3
> because I consider that just barely reliable enough even as the most popular
> filesystem by far.  JFS and XFS have some benefits to them, but none so
> compelling to make up for how much less testing they get.  That said, there
> seem to be a fair number of people happily running high-performance
> PostgreSQL instances on XFS.

I thought the common wisdom was to use ext2 for the WAL, since the WAL is a journal system, and ext3 would essentially
bejournaling the journal.  Is that not true? 

Craig