Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question
Date: 2005-02-24 17:44:25
Message-ID: 87r7j5svie.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32


"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:

> * Linux, with fsync (default), write-cache enabled: usually no data
> corruption, but two runs which had

Are you verifying that all the data that was committed was actually stored? Or
just verifying that the database works properly after rebooting?

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.

You may find that if you check this case again that the "usually no data
corruption" is actually "usually lost transactions but no corruption".

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-02-24 17:56:07 Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-02-24 17:44:00 Re: [ADMIN] invalid multibyte character for locale

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-02-24 17:56:07 Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2005-02-24 16:19:39 Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question