Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Uh, that's exactly what's under discussion. Not sending useless fsync
>> requests when fsync is off is just one part of it; a part that happens
>> to be quite useful for some test scenarios, even if not so much for
>> production. (IIRC, the original complainant in this thread was running
>> fsync off.)
> My point is that if sending fsync requests is cheap enough, then not
> sending them won't save anything meaningful.
Well, that argument is exactly why the code is designed the way it is...
but we are now finding out that sending useless fsync requests isn't as
cheap as all that.
The larger point here, in any case, is that I don't believe anyone wants
to expend a good deal of skull sweat and possibly performance on
ensuring that transitioning from fsync off to fsync on in an active
database is a reliable operation. It does not seem like something we
are ever going to recommend, and we have surely got nine hundred ninety
nine other things that are more useful to spend development time on.
regards, tom lane