From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Remove fsync ON/OFF as a visible option? |
Date: | 2015-03-21 04:29:22 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRLWm+dD_uX1MC88FgEEW=b_T8X_95e=Kes9bg2zQ2EQw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> There are just as many people that are running with scissors that are now
>> running (or attempting to run) our elephant in production. Does it make
>> sense to remove fsync (and possibly full_page_writes) from such a visible
>> place as postgresql.conf?
>
> -1
>
> Anyone turning off fsync without even for a moment considering the
> consequences has only themselves to blame. I can't imagine why you'd
> want to remove full_page_writes or make it less visible either, since
> in principle it ought to be perfectly fine to turn it off in
> production once its verified as safe.
-1 for its removal as well. It is still useful for developers to
emulate CPU-bounded loads...
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-03-21 06:06:55 | Re: proposal: searching in array function - array_position |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-03-21 03:58:10 | Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric |