Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> I haven't followed the jungle of numbers too closely.
> Is it not the case that WAL + fsync is still faster than 7.0 + fsync and
> WAL/no fsync is still faster than 7.0/no fsync?

I believe the first is true in most cases.  I wouldn't swear to the
second though, since WAL requires more I/O and doesn't save any fsyncs
if you've got 'em all turned off anyway ...

			regards, tom lane