| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Peter T(dot) Brown" <peter(at)memeticsystems(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'Radu-Adrian Popescu'" <radu(dot)popescu(at)aldratech(dot)com>, "'Postgres Admin List'" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Maximum Performance Follow-up Question |
| Date: | 2002-01-25 19:50:24 |
| Message-ID: | 1051.1011988224@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
"Peter T. Brown" <peter(at)memeticsystems(dot)com> writes:
> Is there any BIG risk in turning fsync off?
No, I wouldn't say so if you consider your data noncritical. fsync is
for stuff like orders and bank accounts, where losing even one
committed transaction is not acceptable.
> And isn't there some way to use fsync but just use it less frequently,
That's pretty much what you get with fsync off: the Unix system will
still flush data to disk every 30 sec or so (see syncer daemon's man
page).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bolt Thrower | 2002-01-26 01:27:16 | SQL question |
| Previous Message | Peter T. Brown | 2002-01-25 19:44:50 | Re: Maximum Performance Follow-up Question |