| From: | Ian Lance Taylor <ian(at)airs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposed WAL changes |
| Date: | 2001-03-07 17:37:49 |
| Message-ID: | sihf155vki.fsf@daffy.airs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com> writes:
> I feel that the fact that
>
> WAL can't help in the event of disk errors
>
> is often overlooked.
This is true in general. But, nevertheless, WAL can be written to
protect against predictable disk errors, when possible. Failing to
write a couple of disk blocks when the system crashes is a reasonably
predictable disk error. WAL should ideally be written to work
correctly in that situation.
Ian
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 102: An atom-blaster is a good weapon, but it can point both ways.
-- Isaac Asimov
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2001-03-07 18:44:24 | Re: Performance monitor |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-03-07 16:57:42 | Re: Proposed WAL changes |