Re: Datatypes and performance
От | Mattias Kregert |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Datatypes and performance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 013c01c3448d$a7a51fc0$09000a0a@kregert.se обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Datatypes and performance ("Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>) |
Ответы |
Re: Datatypes and performance
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote: > "Mattias Kregert" <mattias@kregert.se> writes: > > [ misguided analysis ] > > > Journalling FS will fix the FS problems, so the files are ok. > > PG journal will fix the PG problems so the tables will be ok. > > Only if the journal is all down to disk before the crash. > > The fundamental problem with fsync off is that it's likely to violate > the WAL principle (write journal entry before data entry it describes). > If you then crash, you have data entries that correspond to transactions > that should not have been committed (because WAL replay won't guarantee > recovering all of the transaction's effects). In other words, corrupt > data. > > If we had a less costly way of guaranteeing write order than fsync, we'd > use it, but there is no other portable method. Uh oh... i thought the journal was always synced, and that the fsync option only affected table writes... :( If I turn fsync on and then pull the power cord while a number of clients are doing lots of inserts/updates and stuff, willthe fsync then guarantee that no data will be lost or corrupted? /* m */
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: