Re: Background writer process

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> >> Having fsync for regular data files and sync for WAL segment a comfortable 
> >> compramise?  Or this is going to use fsync for all of them.
> 
> > I think we still need sync() for WAL because sometimes backends are
> > going to have to write their own buffers, and we don't want them using
> > fsync or it will be very slow.
> 
> sync() for WAL is a complete nonstarter, because it gives you no
> guarantees at all about whether the write has occurred.  I don't really
> care what you say about speed; this is a correctness point.

Sorry, I meant sync() is needed for recycling WAL (checkpoint), not for
WAL writes.  I assume that's what Shridhar meant, but now I am not sure.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073