Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC

Tom Lane writes:

> However, I can actually make a case for this: we are flushing out
> performance bugs in a new feature, ie WAL.

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?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/