Re: Recovery of PGSQL after system crash failing!!!
| От | Vadim Mikheev |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Recovery of PGSQL after system crash failing!!! |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 002d01c0966a$39639060$4879583f@sectorbase.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | AW: Recovery of PGSQL after system crash failing!!! (Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > It removes the need to disable fsync to get best performance! > > -F performance is still better, only the difference is not so big as before. Well, when "checkpoint seek in logs" will be implemented difference will be the same - lost consistency. > > Since there is a fundamental recovery problem if the WAL file > > disappears, then perhaps we should have a workaround which can ignore > > the requirement for that file on startup? Or maybe we do already? > > Vadim?? > > This was discussed, but iirc not yet implemented. Yes & yes. > > Also, could the "-F" option be disabled now that WAL is enabled? Or is > > there still some reason to encourage/allow folks to use it? I've used it when testing btree runtime recovery to increase concurrence. > I use it, since I restore after a system crash (which never happens). > I think all that is probably missing in -F mode is probably 2-3 fsyncs > during checkpoint. One for the xlog, and one for pg_control (maybe also pg_log). > All other fsyncs are only to not buffer transactions. Probably we could just force fsync during checkpoint, for the moment. Thanks to all for help! Vadim
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: