> Guilty as charged I am afraind... :( Here, I though with WAL and
> all (bad pun :), I would not need fsync anymore and decided to be
> reckless. Guess I ought to reconsider that decision.... Though wasn't WAL
> supposed to remove the need for fsync, or was it just to improve recovery
> ablity?
It removes the need to disable fsync to get best performance! The
converse is not true; it does not eliminate the need to fsync to help
guard data integrity, and the WAL file management may be a bit less
robust than that for other tables. I can see how this might have been
omitted from much of the discussion, so it is important that we remind
ourselves about this. Thanks for the reminder :/
Since there is a fundamental recovery problem if the WAL file
disappears, then perhaps we should have a workaround which can ignore
the requirement for that file on startup? Or maybe we do already?
Vadim??
Also, could the "-F" option be disabled now that WAL is enabled? Or is
there still some reason to encourage/allow folks to use it?
- Thomas