Re: 9.6 and fsync=off
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 9.6 and fsync=off |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CANP8+jKtR+MCL3YAvT5b_aP3g-E5Mq_Bq5G4bh1oMcijnrRVcw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 9.6 and fsync=off ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 28 April 2016 at 22:30, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
--
On Thursday, April 28, 2016, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:On 27 April 2016 at 17:04, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:On 27 April 2016 at 21:44, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> +1 (Abhijit's wording with data loss changed to data corruption)
I'd suggest something like
#fsync = on # flush data to disk for crash safety
# (turning this off can cause
# unrecoverable data corruption!)Looks good.The docs on fsync are already good, it's just a matter of making people think twice and actually look at them.If fsync=off and you turn it on, does it fsync anything at that point?Or does it mean only that future fsyncs will occur?http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-wal.html4th paragraph in the fsync section.
Thanks. I've never touched that parameter! But I could have read the docs.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: