Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Pierre-Frédéric Caillaud wrote:
> > 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
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 ?
>
Pierre-Frédéric Caillaud wrote:
> 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
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 p
ReiserFS 4 is (will be) a filesystem that implements transactions.
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
