From: | lars hofhansl <lhofhansl(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Anibal David Acosta <aa(at)devshock(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: synchronous_commit off |
Date: | 2011-08-03 00:08:08 |
Message-ID: | 1312330088.11904.YahooMailNeo@web121712.mail.ne1.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
No: The commit has the same guarantees as a synchronous commit w.r.t. data consistency. The commit can only fail (as a whole) due to hardware problems or postgres backend crashes.
And yes: The client commit returns, but the server can fail later and not persist the transaction and it will be lost (again as a whole).
Your application should be able to tolerate losing the latest committed transactions if you use this.
The difference to fsync=off is that a server crash will leave the database is a consistent state with just the latest transactions lost.
________________________________
From: Anibal David Acosta <aa(at)devshock(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2011 6:29 AM
Subject: [PERFORM] synchronous_commit off
Can a transaction committed asynchronously report an error, duplicate key or something like that, causing a client with a OK transaction but server with a FAILED transaction.
Thanks
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | lars hofhansl | 2011-08-03 00:16:26 | Re: Which Join is better |
Previous Message | Gavin Flower | 2011-08-02 23:01:58 | Re: Tsearch2 - bad performance with concatenated ts-vectors |