From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: no universally correct setting for fsync |
Date: | 2010-05-07 14:00:50 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimHV4IKzzjAZHJ9wwejKCm3t5fbsmIYhk4IOZND@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> 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?
I agree. I've always thought this part of the documentation made
setting fsync=off much more reasonable than I feel it to be.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-05-07 14:03:55 | Re: no universally correct setting for fsync |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-05-07 13:47:15 | no universally correct setting for fsync |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-05-07 14:03:55 | Re: no universally correct setting for fsync |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-05-07 13:47:15 | no universally correct setting for fsync |