Re: 9.6 and fsync=off
| От | Simon Riggs |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: 9.6 and fsync=off |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CANP8+jLAph=Gk1hQy_+o8CvgxuHahZpgh7kqSy2LMq1+OsJS1A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: 9.6 and fsync=off (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: 9.6 and fsync=off
Re: 9.6 and fsync=off |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
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?
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: