Re: Remove fsync ON/OFF as a visible option?

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remove fsync ON/OFF as a visible option?
Date: 2015-03-20 19:40:53
Message-ID: CAM-w4HNH3fBCL5jGMpFPD8Bj==rdeyGnWntrE2+71wyC-8Ry0Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
wrote:

> I am not going to raise a huge stink or anything but it seems rather
> simple.
>

ALTER SYSTEM is, if anything, more accessible and easier to do without
reading comments and warnings than config files.

If it were a green field then naming it data_integrity=off would do more to
scare wave people away than hacking the config system. But making the
change now after years seems kind of silly.

I do wonder if it could be made a synonym for setting a large value of
wal_writer_delay. That wouldn't really help Tom's concern about development
but it might provide the same performance for the traditional use case of
initial loading of large databases. That would require a lot of empirical
testing though.

--
greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2015-03-20 19:48:23 Re: proposal: searching in array function - array_position
Previous Message Gavin Flower 2015-03-20 19:38:54 Re: Order of enforcement of CHECK constraints?