* Christoph Moench-Tegeder (cmt@burggraben.net) wrote:
> ## Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net):
>
> > Worse, such scripts run the serious risk of losing WAL if a crash
> > happens because nothing is ensuring that the WAL has been sync'd to disk
> > before returning from the archive_command.
>
> That risk already exists when using rsync/scp/scp/... and should be
> mitigated by filesystem settings on the receiving side.
I was including rsync/scp/similar based tools, yes, just pointing out
that such tools should be avoided when doing PG backups and WAL
archiving.
I have a hard time seeing "require filesystems be mounted as sync" to
really be a viable solution, though I suppose it would be technically
correct.
Thanks!
Stephen