Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC

From: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Date: 2005-07-07 00:48:57
Message-ID: 42CC7BF9.3060504@opencloud.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:

> I agree we *must* have the GUC, but we also *must* have a way for crash
> recovery to tell us for certain that it has definitely worked, not just
> maybe worked.

Doesn't the same argument apply to the existing fsync = off case? i.e.
we already have a case where we don't provide a crash-recovery guarantee.

-O

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2005-07-07 01:00:36 Re: User's exception plpgsql
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2005-07-07 00:17:23 Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC