Re: Remove fsync ON/OFF as a visible option?

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remove fsync ON/OFF as a visible option?
Date: 2015-03-20 19:49:50
Message-ID: 20150320194950.GM3663@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Joshua D. Drake (jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com) wrote:
> On 03/20/2015 10:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >I would object to that, because it would make it vastly more difficult
> >to use fsync=off easily for development.
>
> How so? alter system fsync on/off (meta)
> restart
>
> That seems easier than editing the file and restarting?

If it's that easy then I'm not sure why you're thinking it'd stop users
from using it..

Now, if you wanted to remove it from the default/shipped
postgresql.conf (but do nothing else), then that might reduce the number
of people who change it without reading the docs, but we might actually
be better off by improving the docs in postgresql.conf to carry a clear
warning about the option.

At the moment, one could look at our default postgresql.conf and the
"turns forced synchronization on or off" and think it's something akin
or somehow related to synchronous_commit (which is completely different,
but the options are right next to each other..).

How about a big warning around fsync and make it more indepenent from
the options around it?

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2015-03-20 20:28:38 Re: proposal: doc: simplify examples of dynamic SQL
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2015-03-20 19:48:23 Re: proposal: searching in array function - array_position