> Even with Magnus' explanation that we're talking Hardware, and not OS
> risk issues, I still think that the default should be the "least risky",
> with the other options being well explained from both a risk/performance
> standpoint, so that its a conscious decision on the admin's side ...
> Any 'risk of data loss' has always been taboo, making the default
> behaviour be to increase that risk seems to be a step backwards to me ..
> having the option, fine ... effectively forcing that option is what I'm
> against (and, by forcing, I mean how many ppl "change from the default"?)
But doesn't making it the default just make it identical to the default
freebsd configuration? ie. Identical risk?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Christopher Browne||Date: 2005-03-18 03:28:47|
|Subject: Re: Excessive growth of pg_attribute and other system tables|
|Previous:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2005-03-18 01:57:52|
|Subject: Re: Lockfile restart failure is still there :-(|
pgsql-hackers-win32 by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-03-20 05:11:18|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression tests|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-03-17 19:38:32|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question|