> Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It may have been much earler in the debate, but has anyone checked to see > > what the maximum possible gains might be - or is it self-evident to people > > who know the code? > > fsync off provides an upper bound to the speed achievable from being > smarter about when to fsync... I doubt that fsync-once-per-checkpoint > would be much different. That was my point, people should be doing fsync once per checkpoint rather than never. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performa... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performa... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performa... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performa... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performa... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performa... Tom Lane
- RE: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performa... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performa... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performance improveme... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performance impro... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performance ... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performance improveme... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performance improvement Philip Warner