Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method

On 8/9/05, mark@mark.mielke.cc <mark@mark.mielke.cc> wrote:
> Personally, my only complaint regarding either choice is the
> assumption that a 'WIN32' guy is stupid, and that 'WIN32' itself is
> deficient. As long as the default is well documented, I don't have a
> problem with either 'faster but less reliable on systems configured
> for speed over reliability at the operating system level (write
> caching enabled)' or 'slower, but reliable, just in case the system is
> configured for speed over reliability at the operating system level
> (write caching enabled)'. As long as it is well documented, either is
> fine. I'm not convinced that Linux is really that much safer anyways,
> and when it comes to a standard WIN32 configuration option, I assume
> that the WIN32 administrator is somewhat competent.

Hello guys,

There seem to be arguments for both possible default configurations
"faster but less reliable" and "slower but reliable". I personally think
that the safer configuration is better.

Anyway, i have an idea :

What do you think about letting the person who installs PostgreSQL
on Win32 decide?  For Windows, we have the graphical installer
that can be improved so that the user is asked to choose between
the two possible configurations.

This way the user will be aware of this choice even if he/she does not
read the docs.

If we let this choice be made at installation time, it would be less
important which is the default value because i think that the users
who install PostgreSQL from sources on Win32 are fewer.
And we can expect that, after bothering to install mingw and compile
PostgreSQL,   they will also bother to configure it according to
their needs.


Cheers,
Adrian Maier