From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org, Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Changing the default wal_sync_method to open_sync for |
Date: | 2005-03-18 02:00:01 |
Message-ID: | 423A3621.9030506@familyhealth.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 |
> 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"?)
But doesn't making it the default just make it identical to the default
freebsd configuration? ie. Identical risk?
Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2005-03-18 03:28:47 | Re: Excessive growth of pg_attribute and other system tables |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-03-18 01:57:52 | Re: Lockfile restart failure is still there :-( |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-03-20 05:11:18 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression tests |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-03-17 19:38:32 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question |