On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> In particular, in view of today's fix, shouldn't this commit be reverted? >>> >>> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=6e8e7cc580665ddd43c8ca2acc6d60f345570a57 >>> >>> I thought at the time that that was nothing more than documenting a >>> known bug, and now it is documenting a dead bug. > >> No, that doc change is still accurate. > > Well, in that case, it should be on the open-items list. If the system > is still behaving that way, it's a bug.
Is it? Sync rep requires fsync on the standby. If you then explicitly turn off fsync on the standby then it has a performance impact, as documented. Setting shared_buffers very low also reduces performance. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
