From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: no universally correct setting for fsync |
Date: | 2010-05-07 14:24:47 |
Message-ID: | 12203.1273242287@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> | If you trust your operating system, your hardware, and your
> | utility company (or your battery backup), you can consider
> | disabling fsync.
> Isn't this a little too rosy a picture to paint?
I think that statement is true as far as it goes, but I agree with
rejiggering the surrounding text. The whole thing was written back
when Postgres was by far the least reliable component of the stack.
It isn't anymore. We should make it clear that fsync=off is not ever
recommended for production.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-05-07 14:38:47 | Re: no universally correct setting for fsync |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-05-07 14:03:55 | Re: no universally correct setting for fsync |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-07 14:36:10 | beta to release |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-05-07 14:03:55 | Re: no universally correct setting for fsync |