| From: | Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Winner of naming discussions: Synchronous Commit |
| Date: | 2007-06-25 23:11:26 |
| Message-ID: | E0D2C3E0-BD5C-4422-9DC6-4FBEF1D1FA31@decibel.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jun 25, 2007, at 3:30 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> So, although its a knife edge decision, I'd say go with
>> synchronous_commit = off.
>
> I agree - I'm not entirely sure why but it just feels more natural
> than asynchronous_commit = on. Plus the reasons you give seem valid.
On the flip-side, experienced DBAs are likely tuned into anything
labeled as "asynchronous"...
I'm wondering if it would be wise to throw a warning at startup if
either sync_commit or fsync were set to off, ideally so that it would
both appear in the logs as well as in output from pg_ctl.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Hammond | 2007-06-25 23:22:48 | Re: Bugtraq: Having Fun With PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-25 22:24:21 | Re: libpq protocol version 2 |