Josh Berkus wrote:
> Pierre,
> >     Are there any plans in a future Postgresql version to support a special  
> > fsync method for Reiser4 which will use the filesystem's transaction  
> > engine, instead of an old kludge like fsync(), with a possibility of  
> > vastly enhanced performance ?
> I don't know of any such in progress right now.  Why don't you start it?  It 
> would have to be an add-in since we support 28 operating systems and Reiser 
> is AFAIK Linux-only, but it sounds like an interesting experiment.
> >     Is there also a possibility to tell Postgres : "I don't care if I lose 30  
> > seconds of transactions on this table if the power goes out, I just want  
> > to be sure it's still ACID et al. compliant but you can fsync less often  
> > and thus be faster" (with a possibility of setting that on a per-table  
> > basis) ?
> Not per-table, no, but otherwise take a look at the Background Writer feature 
> of 8.0.

Actually the fsync of WAL is the big performance issue here.  I added a
TODO item about it.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to