Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: sync vs. fsync question

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: sync vs. fsync question
Date: 2004-06-02 14:34:56
Message-ID: 40BDE590.904@Yahoo.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 5/31/2004 9:45 PM, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I had this question posed to me on IRC and I didn't know the answer.
> 
> If all that is needed to ensure integrity is that the WAL is fsynced, 
> what is wrong with just going:
> 
> wal_sync_method = fsync
> fsync = false

The assumption that WAL is all that is needed to ensure integrity is 
wrong in the first place, unless you are going to keep the WAL forever 
and never recycle the segments. What you're effectively asking for is 
not to checkpoint any more.


Jan

-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-06-02 14:37:31
Subject: Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2004-06-02 14:29:21
Subject: Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group