On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>>> 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?
>>> 8.0.2 is going to have a more rigorous testing cycle because of the
>>> buffer manager changes.
>> This question was asked earlier, and iirc, a few people said yes, and
>> no-one said no. I'm most definitely in the yes camp.
> I have backpatched O_SYNC for Win32 to 8.0.X. Everyone seems to agree
> it should be supported by wal_sync_method. --- the "default" issue
> still needs discussion.
Even with Magnus' explanation that we're talking Hardware, and not OS risk
issues, I still think that the default should be the "least risky", with
the other options being well explained from both a risk/performance
standpoint, so that its a conscious decision on the admin's side ...
Any 'risk of data loss' has always been taboo, making the default
behaviour be to increase that risk seems to be a step backwards to me ..
having the option, fine ... effectively forcing that option is what I'm
against (and, by forcing, I mean how many ppl "change from the default"?)
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-03-17 18:23:05|
|Subject: Re: WIN1252 patch broke my database |
|Previous:||From: Mark Woodward||Date: 2005-03-17 18:13:45|
|Subject: Re: PHP stuff|
pgsql-hackers-win32 by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-03-17 18:35:14|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question|
|Previous:||From: Marc G. Fournier||Date: 2005-03-17 18:11:04|
|Subject: Re: Changing the default wal_sync_method to open_sync for|