Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Bruce,
In your document change which one can be placed on non-journalling
file system? data? wal? or both?
Both. I have updated the docs to mention this, patch attached.
--
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
In your document change which one can be placed on non-journalling
file system? data? wal? or both?
Both. I have updated the docs to mention this, patch attached.
Did you mean to say that journaled file systems are *not*
Kevin Grittner wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
In your document change which one can be placed on non-journalling
file system? data? wal? or both?
Both. I have updated the docs to mention this, patch attached.
Did you mean to say that journaled
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner wrote:
Did you mean to say that journaled file systems are *not*
necessary?
Yes, not needed for database reliablity. The patch text was
attached;
was it unclear?
I think you accidentally left out the word not.
-Kevin
--
Sent via
Kevin Grittner wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner wrote:
Did you mean to say that journaled file systems are *not*
necessary?
Yes, not needed for database reliablity. The patch text was
attached;
was it unclear?
I think you accidentally left out the
Bruce,
In your document change which one can be placed on non-journalling
file system? data? wal? or both?
For me it seems it's not clear.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
Josh Berkus wrote:
First, none of the general purpose filesystems I've seen so far do data
journalling per
Josh Berkus wrote:
First, none of the general purpose filesystems I've seen so far do data
journalling per default, since it's a huge performance penalty, even for
non-RDBMS workloads. The feature you talk about is ext3 specific (and
should be pointed out as such) and only disables write
Michael Renner wrote:
Hi,
the comment WRT WAL recovery and FS journals [1] is a bit misleading in
it's current form.
First, none of the general purpose filesystems I've seen so far do data
journalling per default, since it's a huge performance penalty, even for
non-RDBMS workloads. The
First, none of the general purpose filesystems I've seen so far do data
journalling per default, since it's a huge performance penalty, even for
non-RDBMS workloads. The feature you talk about is ext3 specific (and
should be pointed out as such) and only disables write ordering, meaning
that
Hi,
the comment WRT WAL recovery and FS journals [1] is a bit misleading in
it's current form.
First, none of the general purpose filesystems I've seen so far do data
journalling per default, since it's a huge performance penalty, even for
non-RDBMS workloads. The feature you talk about is ext3
Using pg_control to get checkpoint position speed up things but
to handle possible pg_control corruption we obviously should
implement reading existent log segments (from the last one -
newest - to oldest) to get last checkpoint.
I think this would be *very* important :-)
Andreas
The WAL logs auto-delete I think.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup.| Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
The WAL logs auto-delete I think.
At checkpoint time.
Vadim
1) In the 'WAL Parameters' section, paragraph 3 there is the following
sentence: "After a checkpoint has been made, any log segments written
before the redo record may be removed/archived..." What does the 'may'
refer mean? Does the database administrator need to go into the
directory and
Here's a patch to the wal.sgml text to take acocunt of Vadim's
explanations.
*** wal.sgml.orig Wed Jan 24 21:55:56 2001
--- wal.sgml Wed Jan 24 22:08:44 2001
***
*** 149,154
--- 149,176
/Sect1
+ Sect1 id="recovery"
+ TitleDatabase Recovery with WAL/Title
+
+
Oliver Elphick writes:
Here's a patch to the wal.sgml text to take acocunt of Vadim's
explanations.
I checked in your documentation plus some fixes at other places. Does
somebody care to submit some new words to describe the fsync option
Here is documentation for WAL, as text for immediate review and as SGML
source, generated from Vadim's original text with my editing.
Please review for correctness.
=== WAL chapter ==
Write-Ahead Logging (WAL) in Postgres
Author: Written by
Not knowing much about WAL, but understanding a good deal about Oracle's
logs, I read the WAL documentation below. While it is good, after
reading it I am still left with a couple of questions and therefore
believe the doc could be improved a bit.
The two questions I am left with after reading
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Barry Lind
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 12:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL documentation
Not knowing much about WAL, but understanding a good deal about
19 matches
Mail list logo