Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method
От | Thomas F. O'Connell |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9A3EF56E-F63B-41B0-B9AF-734649994D2B@sitening.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I was recently witness to a benchmark of 7.4.5 on Solaris 9 wherein it was apparently demonstrated that fsync was the fastest option among the 7.4.x wal_sync_method options. If there's a way to make this information more useful by providing more data, please let me know, and I'll see what I can do. -- Thomas F. O'Connell Co-Founder, Information Architect Sitening, LLC Strategic Open Source: Open Your i™ http://www.sitening.com/ 110 30th Avenue North, Suite 6 Nashville, TN 37203-6320 615-469-5150 615-469-5151 (fax) On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > In summary, we added all those wal_sync_method values in hopes of > getting some data on which is best on which platform, but having gone > several years with few reports, I am thinking we should just choose > the > best ones we can and move on, rather than expose a confusing API to > the > users. > > Does anyone show a platform where the *data* options are slower > than the > non-*data* ones?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: