Brad Nicholson wrote:
> > > > Ah, very good point. ?I have added a C comment to clarify why this is
> > > > the current behavior; ?attached and applied.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ?Bruce Momjian ?<br...@momjian.us> ? ? ? ?http://momjian.us
> > > > ?EnterpriseDB ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? http://enterprisedb.com
> > >
> > >
> > > Though has anybody seen a behaviour where synchronous_commit=off is
> > > slower than synchronous_commit=on ? Again there are two cases here
> > > one with O_* flag and other with f*sync flags. But I had seen that
> > > behavior with PostgreSQL 9.0 beta(2 I think) though havent really
> > > investigated it much yet .. (though now I dont remember which
> > > wal_sync_method flag) . Just curious if anybody has seen that
> > > behavior..
> >
> > I have trouble believing how synchronous_commit=off could be slower than
> > 'on'.
> >
>
> I wonder if it could be contention on wal buffers?
>
> Say I've turned synchronous_commit off, I drive enough traffic fill up
> my wal_buffers. I assume that we would have to start writing buffers
> down to disk before allocating to the new process.
Uh, good question. I know this report showed ynchronous_commit=off as
faster than 'on':
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2010-06/msg00277.php
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
