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
Hi all,
I've been running a lot of benchmarks recently (I'll publish the results
once I properly analyze them). One thing I'd like to demonstrate is the
effect of direct I/O when the wal_fsync_method is set to
open_sync/open_datasync.
I.e. I'd like to see cases when this improves/hurts
On 5.2.2012 00:25, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi all,
I've been running a lot of benchmarks recently (I'll publish the results
once I properly analyze them). One thing I'd like to demonstrate is the
effect of direct I/O when the wal_fsync_method is set to
open_sync/open_datasync.
I.e. I'd like