> WAL on single drive: 7.990 rec/s
> WAL on 2nd IDE drive: 8.329 rec/s
> WAL on tmpfs: 13.172 rec/s
>
> A huge jump in performance but a bit scary having a WAL that can
> disappear at any time. I'm gonna workup a rsync script and do some
> power-off experiments to see how badly it gets mangled.
Surely this is just equivalent to disabling fsync? If you put a WAL on a
volatile file system, there's not a whole lot of point in having one at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://last.fm
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
