Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 11/30/2010 10:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We should wait for the outcome of the discussion about whether to change
>> the default wal_sync_method before worrying about this.
> we've just had a significant PGX customer encounter this with the latest
> Postgres on Redhat's freshly released flagship product. Presumably the
> default wal_sync_method will only change prospectively.
I don't think so. The fact that Linux is changing underneath us is a
compelling reason for back-patching a change here. Our older branches
still have to be able to run on modern OS versions. I'm also fairly
unclear on what you think a fix would look like if it's not effectively
a change in the default.
(Hint: this *will* be changing, one way or another, in Red Hat's version
of 8.4, since that's what RH is shipping in RHEL6.)
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2010-12-01 04:25:47|
|Subject: Re: Spread checkpoint sync|
|Previous:||From: KaiGai Kohei||Date: 2010-12-01 03:59:46|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] column-level update privs + lock table|