From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Vivek Khera <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Humor me: Postgresql vs. MySql (esp. licensing) |
Date: | 2003-10-10 20:14:35 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0310101412540.19967-100000@css120.ihs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Vivek Khera wrote:
> >>>>> "sm" == scott marlowe <scott.marlowe> writes:
>
> >> will ungracefully kill the DB process(es). Doesn't matter what DB (or
> >> any other application) you're running, you *can* lose data this way.
>
> sm> While it is possible to lose a non-committed transaction, WAL prevents the
> sm> database from becoming corrupted. Assuming proper fsyncing of your hard
> sm> drives (i.e. SCSI, or IDE with write cache disabled)
>
> So you're saying it is not possible to corrupt the WAL if the process
> is ungracefully killed by the OS?
No, but it doesn't matter if it is corrupted, because the corrupted part
would be at the end, where a transaction was starting, and would just get
ignored. i.e. postgresql would replay only the parts of the WAL that
were complete and showed as committed.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vivek Khera | 2003-10-10 20:15:43 | Re: Table partitioning for maximum speed? |
Previous Message | Manfred Koizar | 2003-10-10 20:13:25 | Re: Unique Index vs. Unique Constraint |