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

Re: BUG #5206: wal_sync_method in stock postgresql.conf may be wrong

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #5206: wal_sync_method in stock postgresql.conf may be wrong
Date: 2009-11-23 22:11:49
Message-ID: 603c8f070911231411r703844ady5deb4c9f3b37ee12@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-hackers
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>
> The following bug has been logged online:
>
> Bug reference:      5206
> Logged by:          Alvaro Herrera
> Email address:      alvherre(at)postgresql(dot)org
> PostgreSQL version: any
> Operating system:   any
> Description:        wal_sync_method in stock postgresql.conf may be wrong
> Details:
>
> Jaime Casanova just made me note that though most commented variables in
> postgresql.conf list the value that they have because of being the default,
> this is not the case with wal_sync_method -- it instead says "fsync" and
> then explains in a comment that the real value is something else.
>
> Now I understand why this is (it's because of the fact that the default
> value is platform-dependent), but it still is a bit unfortunate and it would
> be better to avoid it.
>
> I have two suggestions to fix this:
>
> 1. avoid displaying any value at all as if it were the true default (this
> would perhaps make the line invalid were the user to uncomment it)
>
> 2. change initdb so that it modifies that line too (along with
> shared_buffers etc) to put the actual default value in there, but without
> uncommenting it.
>
> I also have one non-suggestion:
>
> 3. do nothing
>
> Thoughts?

I like #3 or #1 better than #2.   Putting logic into initdb to edit
the comments in the file doesn't really seem like a worthwhile use of
time.  (I still think we should get rid of the commented-out settings
altogether, but that's another argument...)

...Robert

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-11-23 22:16:31
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Add tests to dblink covering use of COPY TO FUNCTION
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2009-11-23 21:40:55
Subject: Re: magic block in doc functions

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-11-24 00:25:09
Subject: Re: BUG #5206: wal_sync_method in stock postgresql.conf may be wrong
Previous:From: Nikhil SontakkeDate: 2009-11-23 12:58:45
Subject: Re: BUG #5180: How to get only User created tables by using SQLTables() in ODBC

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