Re: sync vs. fsync question

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: sync vs. fsync question
Date: 2004-06-02 14:34:56
Message-ID: 40BDE590.904@Yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 5/31/2004 9:45 PM, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I had this question posed to me on IRC and I didn't know the answer.
>
> If all that is needed to ensure integrity is that the WAL is fsynced,
> what is wrong with just going:
>
> wal_sync_method = fsync
> fsync = false

The assumption that WAL is all that is needed to ensure integrity is
wrong in the first place, unless you are going to keep the WAL forever
and never recycle the segments. What you're effectively asking for is
not to checkpoint any more.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-06-02 14:37:31 Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2004-06-02 14:29:21 Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER