From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | 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 17:56:07 |
Message-ID: | 26086.1109267767@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> I'm a bit surprised that the write-cache lead to a corrupt database, and not
> merely lost transactions. I had the impression that drives still handled the
> writes in the order received.
There'd be little point in having a cache if they did, I should think.
I thought the point of the cache was to allow the disk to schedule I/O
in an order that minimizes seek time (ie, such a disk has got its own
elevator queue or similar).
> 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?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-02-24 18:34:36 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-02-24 17:44:25 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-02-24 18:34:36 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-02-24 17:44:25 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question |