| From: | Florian Weimer <fw(at)deneb(dot)enyo(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remove fsync ON/OFF as a visible option? |
| Date: | 2015-03-22 21:18:01 |
| Message-ID: | 87twxc68ae.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* David G. Johnston:
> On Sunday, March 22, 2015, Florian Weimer <fw(at)deneb(dot)enyo(dot)de> wrote:
>
>> * David G. Johnston:
>>
>> > "enables or disables data durability promise of ACID." ?
>>
>> “fsync = on” only works if the storage stack doesn't do funny things.
>> Depending on the system, it might not be sufficient.
>>
>
> Allows for (underlying storage not withstanding) or disables, then.
Maybe.
> But that distinction is present no matter what so from the standpoint the
> alternative is no worse and at least tells the user that a key promise of
> RDBMS is being voluntarily waived if they disable this setting.
I don't think this will matter in the end. The existing
postgresql.conf template does not suggest at all that fsync=off makes
things go substantially faster. Administrators obviously get the idea
from somewhere else, and they will continue to follow that advice no
matter what the configuration template says.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-03-22 21:20:49 | Re: Using 128-bit integers for sum, avg and statistics aggregates |
| Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2015-03-22 21:00:13 | Re: Using 128-bit integers for sum, avg and statistics aggregates |