From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question |
Date: | 2005-02-24 21:33:10 |
Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE4769B0@algol.sollentuna.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> You may find that if you check this case again that the
>"usually no data
>> corruption" is actually "usually lost transactions but no
>corruption".
>
>That's a good point, but it seems difficult to be sure of the last
>reportedly-committed transaction in a powerfail situation. Maybe if
>you drive the test from a client on another machine?
FYI, that's what I did. Test client ran across the network to the
server, so it could output on the console which transaction was last
reported commityted.
In a couple of cases, the server came up with a transaction the client
had *not* reported as committed. But I think that can be explained by
the commit message not reaching the client over the network before power
went out.
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-02-24 21:34:32 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question |
Previous Message | Ernst Herzberg | 2005-02-24 21:27:03 | Re: Some download statistics |