Re: [PATCH] Revert default wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux 2.6.33+
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Revert default wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux 2.6.33+ |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 896.1288988200@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Revert default wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux 2.6.33+ (Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Revert default wal_sync_method to fdatasync on
Linux 2.6.33+
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> writes: > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 21:20, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> What's that got to do with it? > I'm not sure what you're asking. > Surely changing the default wal_sync_method for all OSes in > maintenance releases is out of the question, no? Well, if we could leave well enough alone it would be fine with me, but I think our hand is being forced by the Linux kernel hackers. I don't really think that "change the default on Linux" is that much nicer than "change the default everywhere" when it comes to what we ought to consider back-patching. In any case, you're getting ahead of the game: we need to decide on the desired behavior first and then think about what to patch. Do the performance results that were cited show that open_dsync is generally inferior to fdatasync? If so, why would we think that that conclusion is Linux-specific? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: