Josh Berkus wrote: > Pierre, > > > Are there any plans in a future Postgresql version to support a special > > fsync method for Reiser4 which will use the filesystem's transaction > > engine, instead of an old kludge like fsync(), with a possibility of > > vastly enhanced performance ? > > I don't know of any such in progress right now. Why don't you start it? It > would have to be an add-in since we support 28 operating systems and Reiser > is AFAIK Linux-only, but it sounds like an interesting experiment. > > > Is there also a possibility to tell Postgres : "I don't care if I lose 30 > > seconds of transactions on this table if the power goes out, I just want > > to be sure it's still ACID et al. compliant but you can fsync less often > > and thus be faster" (with a possibility of setting that on a per-table > > basis) ? > > Not per-table, no, but otherwise take a look at the Background Writer feature > of 8.0.
Actually the fsync of WAL is the big performance issue here. I added a TODO item about it. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
