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

Re: [HACKERS] no universally correct setting for fsync

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] no universally correct setting for fsync
Date: 2010-05-08 00:13:32
Message-ID: 4335.1273277612@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docspgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> This is what I have to replace the current fsync entry in config.sgml.

s/unexpected shutdown/system crash/, perhaps.  The wording you have
suggests that a forced Postgres stoppage produces a problem, which it
doesn't.  It takes a failure at the OS level or below to cause a
problem.

> I believe that the note about needing fsync for Warm Standby to work
> correctly is true, but could someone verify it?

AFAIK that's nonsense.  The filesystem state that pg_standby could see
will be updated in any case; pg_standby has no direct access to the bits
on the platters, any more than Postgres does.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Bernd HelmleDate: 2010-05-08 00:16:23
Subject: Re: no universally correct setting for fsync
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2010-05-08 00:02:59
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] no universally correct setting for fsync

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bernd HelmleDate: 2010-05-08 00:16:23
Subject: Re: no universally correct setting for fsync
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2010-05-08 00:02:59
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] no universally correct setting for fsync

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