Le 3 février 2012 19:48, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com a écrit :
2012/1/22 Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz:
That's suspiciously similar to the checkpoint timeout (which was set to
4 minutes), but why should this matter for minimal WAL level and not for
archive?
I went through and looked at
On 4.2.2012 17:04, Cédric Villemain wrote:
Le 3 février 2012 19:48, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com a écrit :
2012/1/22 Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz:
That's suspiciously similar to the checkpoint timeout (which was set to
4 minutes), but why should this matter for minimal WAL level and not for
2012/1/22 Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz:
That's suspiciously similar to the checkpoint timeout (which was set to
4 minutes), but why should this matter for minimal WAL level and not for
archive?
I went through and looked at all the places where we invoke
XLogIsNeeded(). When XLogIsNeeded(), we:
On 17.1.2012 01:29, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 16.1.2012 23:35, Greg Smith wrote:
On 01/12/2012 06:17 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I've run a series fo pgbench benchmarks with the aim to see the effect
of moving the WAL logs to a separate drive, and one thing that really
surprised me is that the
On 01/12/2012 06:17 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I've run a series fo pgbench benchmarks with the aim to see the effect
of moving the WAL logs to a separate drive, and one thing that really
surprised me is that the archive log level seems to give much better
performance than minimal log level.
How
On 16.1.2012 23:35, Greg Smith wrote:
On 01/12/2012 06:17 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I've run a series fo pgbench benchmarks with the aim to see the effect
of moving the WAL logs to a separate drive, and one thing that really
surprised me is that the archive log level seems to give much better
