Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I haven't followed the jungle of numbers too closely.
> Is it not the case that WAL + fsync is still faster than 7.0 + fsync and
> WAL/no fsync is still faster than 7.0/no fsync?
I believe the first is true in most cases. I wouldn't swear to the
second though, since WAL requires more I/O and doesn't save any fsyncs
if you've got 'em all turned off anyway ...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
- Re: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsync to be d... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsync to be done via ... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsync to be done ... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsync to be d... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SY... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsync to be done via ... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsync to be done via ... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SY... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsync to be done via ... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsync to be done ... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsync to be d... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsync to... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsyn... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsyn... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsyn... Bruce Momjian
- RE: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC Mikheev, Vadim
