Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question
Date: 2005-02-25 08:57:15
Message-ID: 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA40184D31C@m0114.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> >Are you verifying that all the data that was committed was actually stored? Or
> >just verifying that the database works properly after rebooting?
>
> I verified the data.

Does pg startup increase the xid by some amount (say 1000 xids) after crash ?
Else I think you would also need to rollback a range of xids after
the crash, to see if you don't loose data by reusing and rolling back xids.

The risk is datapages reaching the disk before WAL, because the disk rearranges.
I think you would not notice such corruption (with pg_dump) unless you do the
range rollback.

Andreas

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Karel Zak 2005-02-25 08:59:25 Re: UTF8 or Unicode
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2005-02-25 08:34:17 idea for concurrent seqscans