From: | Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method |
Date: | 2005-08-08 21:51:13 |
Message-ID: | 20050808215113.GA12793@l-t.ee |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 05:38:59PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marko Kreen wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 03:56:39PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Currently, here are the options available for wal_sync_method:
> > >
> > > #wal_sync_method = fsync # the default varies across platforms:
> > > # fsync, fdatasync, fsync_writethrough,
> > > # open_sync, open_datasync
> >
> > On same topic:
> >
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2005-07/msg00811.php
> >
> > Why does win32 PostgreSQL allow data corruption by default?
>
> It behaves the same on Unix as Win32, and if you have battery-backed
> cache, you don't need writethrough, so we don't have it as default. I
> am going to write a section in the manual for 8.1 about these
> reliability issues.
For some reason I don't see "corruped database after crash"
reports on Unixen. Why?
Also, why can't win32 be safe without battery-backed cache?
I can't see such requirement on other platforms.
--
marko
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-08-08 22:02:18 | Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method |
Previous Message | Matt Miller | 2005-08-08 21:45:54 | Re: PL/pgSQL: SELECT INTO EXACT |