On 2016-02-03 15:07:12 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 2/2/16 10:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >Now, you could also set such configuration settings in > >a situation where it will not work out well. But that is true of most > >configuration settings.
By that argument we should probably raise the lower limit of a bunch of parameters :P > Yeah, if we're going to start playing parent then I think the first thing to > do is remove the fsync GUC. The AWS team has done testing that shows it to > be worthless from a performance standpoint now that we have synchronous > commit, and it's an extremely large foot-bazooka to have laying around. Meh, I don't buy that. There are workloads where that's the case, but also ones were it's not true. Try e.g. 2PC. And yes, there's definitely cases where 2PC makes sense, even if you don't need durability on a local basis. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
