From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Mattias Kregert" <mattias(at)kregert(dot)se>, "Karsten Hilbert" <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net>, "PostgreSQL List" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Datatypes and performance |
Date: | 2003-07-07 15:49:11 |
Message-ID: | 200307071649.11338.dev@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Monday 07 Jul 2003 4:11 pm, Mattias Kregert wrote:
> > > If I turn fsync on and then pull the power cord while a
> > > number of clients are doing lots of inserts/updates and stuff,
> > > will the fsync then guarantee that no data will be lost or
> > > corrupted?
> >
> > You are surely kidding, aren't you ?
> >
> > Karsten
>
> No. No kidding.
> Just to clarify, what I mean is: With FSYNC enabled, after a power failure,
> after "pg_ctl start" and replay of xact log etc; Are COMMITTED transactions
> guaranteed to be intact, and are UNCOMMITTED transactions guaranteed not to
> appear in the tables?
>
> If the answer is "yes", then I understand the use of FSYNC.
>
> If the answer is "no", then i don't see the point in using FSYNC at all.
The answer is "yes" providing:
1. Your hardware didn't suffer a failure during the outage.
2. Your disks don't like to the operating-system.
The second point is important - some disks have write-cache enabled and report
"done" when data is written to the cache not the platter. Google for
discussion.
--
Richard Huxton
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pedro Alves | 2003-07-07 16:57:51 | making multiple updates use indexes: howto? |
Previous Message | strk | 2003-07-07 15:39:15 | SPI portals and memory usage |