| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | andrew(at)supernews(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method |
| Date: | 2005-08-09 20:03:53 |
| Message-ID: | 18587.1123617833@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews(at)supernews(dot)com> writes:
> On 2005-08-09, "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> wrote:
>> ... or iDE disks with write cache enabled. I've certainly seen more than
>> what I'd call 1% (though I haven't studied it to be sure) that's because
>> of write-cached disks...
> Every SCSI disk I've looked at recently has had write cache enabled by
> default, fwiw.
On SCSI, write cacheing is default because the protocol is actually
designed to support it: the drive can take the data, and then take some
more, without giving the impression that the write has been done.
If a SCSI drive reports write complete when it hasn't actually put the
bits on the platter yet, then it's simply broken.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-08-09 20:06:42 | Re: small proposal: pg_config record flag variables? |
| Previous Message | Richard_D_Levine | 2005-08-09 20:00:52 | Re: Testing of MVCC |