Re: Changing the default wal_sync_method to open_sync for

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Dave Page wrote:
> >>> 2. Another question is what to do with 8.0.X? Do we
> >>> backpatch this for
> >>> Win32 performance? Can we test it enough to know it will work well?
> >>> 8.0.2 is going to have a more rigorous testing cycle because of the
> >>> buffer manager changes.
> >>
> >> This question was asked earlier, and iirc, a few people said yes, and
> >> no-one said no. I'm most definitely in the yes camp.
> >
> > I have backpatched O_SYNC for Win32 to 8.0.X. Everyone seems to agree
> > it should be supported by wal_sync_method. --- the "default" issue
> > still needs discussion.
>
> Even with Magnus' explanation that we're talking Hardware, and not OS risk
> issues, I still think that the default should be the "least risky", with
> the other options being well explained from both a risk/performance
> standpoint, so that its a conscious decision on the admin's side ...
>
> Any 'risk of data loss' has always been taboo, making the default
> behaviour be to increase that risk seems to be a step backwards to me ..
> having the option, fine ... effectively forcing that option is what I'm
> against (and, by forcing, I mean how many ppl "change from the default"?)

I understand that logic. Please see my posting that their fsync is
something we don't have on Unix.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073