From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | no universally correct setting for fsync |
Date: | 2010-05-07 13:47:15 |
Message-ID: | 4BE3D3930200002500031382@gw.wicourts.gov |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
Someone just posted to the -admin list with a database corrupted
while running with fsync=off. I was all set to refer him to the
documentation explaining why he should stop doing this, but to my
surprise the documentation waffles on the issue way past what I
think is reasonable.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/runtime-config-wal.html#GUC-FSYNC
There are dire-sounding statements interspersed with:
| using fsync results in a performance penalty
| Due to the risks involved, there is no universally correct setting
| for fsync.
| If you trust your operating system, your hardware, and your
| utility company (or your battery backup), you can consider
| disabling fsync.
Isn't this a little too rosy a picture to paint?
-Kevin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-07 14:00:50 | Re: no universally correct setting for fsync |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-05-06 16:10:23 | Re: Note addition to REASSIGN OWNED |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-07 14:00:50 | Re: no universally correct setting for fsync |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-05-07 12:04:02 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |