On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: >> On 11/30/10 7:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: >>>> Apparently, testing for O_DIRECT at compile time isn't adequate. Ideas? >>> >>> We should wait for the outcome of the discussion about whether to change >>> the default wal_sync_method before worrying about this. > >> Are we considering backporting that change? > >> If so, this would be another argument in favor of changing the default. > > Well, no, actually it's the same (only) argument. We'd never consider > back-patching such a change if our hand weren't being forced by kernel > changes :-( > > As things stand, though, I think the only thing that's really open for > discussion is how wide to make the scope of the default-change: should > we just do it across the board, or try to limit it to some subset of the > platforms where open_datasync is currently the default. And that's a > decision that ought to be informed by some performance testing.
If we could get a clear idea of what performance testing needs to be done, I suspect we could find some people willing to do it. What do you think would be useful? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
