| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marek Florianczyk <franki(at)tpi(dot)pl> |
| Cc: | Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: performance problem - 10.000 databases |
| Date: | 2003-11-06 15:17:45 |
| Message-ID: | 19628.1068131865@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Marek Florianczyk <franki(at)tpi(dot)pl> writes:
> W licie z czw, 06-11-2003, godz. 15:37, Jeff pisze:
>> I would *STRONGLY* advise not running with fsync=false in production as
>> PG _CANNOT_ guaruntee data consistancy in the event of a hardware
>> failure. It would sure suck to have a power failure screw up your nice
>> db for the users!
> Sure I know, but with WAL it will make fsync every some? seconds, right?
No. fsync = false turns off fsync of WAL. It's okay for development
but not when you actually care about integrity of your data.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2003-11-06 15:40:40 | Re: performance problem - 10.000 databases |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-11-06 15:07:57 | Re: performance problem - 10.000 databases |