On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 11:20:12PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Basically we do open_datasync -> fdatasync -> fsync. This is
> empirically what we found to be fastest on most operating systems, and
> we default to the first one that exists on the operating system.
>
> Notice we never default
RS] Changing the default wal_sync_method to
> open_sync for Win32?
>
> 1. Should it be the default wal_sync_method for Win32?
Yes.
> 2. Another question is what to do with 8.0.X? Do we
> backpatch this for
> Win32 performance? Can we test it enough to know it will work well?
> 8
> >> I'd like to see this one also considered for 8.0.x, though I'd
> >> certainly like to see some more testing as well. Perhaps it's
> >> suitable for the "8.0.x with extended testing" that is planned for
> >> the ARC replacement code?
> >>
> >> It does make a huge difference on win32. While w
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Notice we never default to open_sync. However, on Win32, Magnus got a
> 60% speedup by using open_sync, implemented using
> FILE_FLAG_WRITE_THROUGH. Now, because this the fastest on Win32, I
> think we should default to open_sync on Win32. The attached patch
> implements
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I'd like to see this one also considered for 8.0.x, though I'd certainly
> like to see some more testing as well. Perhaps it's suitable for the
> "8.0.x with extended testing" that is planned for the ARC replacement
> code?
>
> It does make a huge difference on win32. Whil
