Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 9:42 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's not necessarily an argument against this patch, which by the
> way I have not reviewed.  Even a 5% speedup on this kind of workload
> is potentially worthwhile; everyone likes it when things go faster.
> I'm just not convinced you can get very much more than that on a
> realistic workload.  Of course, I might be wrong.

Oh, incidentally -- in our internal testing, we found that
wal_sync_method=open_datasync was significantly faster than
wal_sync_method=fdatasync.  You might find that open_datasync isn't
much different from pmem_drain, even though they're both faster than
fdatasync.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company