Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2010/6/23 Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > Josh Berkus <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> >> a) Eliminate WAL logging entirely > > > > If we elimiate WAL logging, that means a reinstall is required for even > > a postmaster crash, which is a new non-durable behavior. > > > > Also, we just added wal_level = minimal, which might end up being a poor > > name choice of we want wal_level = off in PG 9.1. ?Perhaps we should > > have used wal_level = crash_safe in 9.0. > > > > I have added the following TODO: > > > > ? ? ? ?Consider a non-crash-safe wal_level that eliminates WAL activity > > > > ? ? ? ? ? ?* http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2010-06/msg00300.php > > > > -- > > isn't fsync to off enought? Well, testing reported in the thread showed other settings also help, though the checkpoint lengthening was not tested. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. + -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
