| From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Marko Kreen" <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method |
| Date: | 2005-08-09 14:05:28 |
| Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE6C785F@algol.sollentuna.se |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > Now thinking about it, the guy had corrupt table, not WAL log.
> > > How is WAL->tables synched? Does the 'wal_sync_method'
> > > affect it or not?
> >
> > I *think* it always fsyncs() there as it is now, but I'm
> not 100% sure.
>
> No. If fsync is off, then no fsync is done to the data files
> on checkpoint either. (See mdsync() on src/backend/storage/smgr/md.c)
Right, but we're not talking fsync=off, we're talking when you are using
fdatasync, O_SYNC etc.
If you turn off fsync you're on your own, no matter the OS or other
settings...
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-08-09 14:18:52 | Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-08-09 14:04:38 | Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method |