On 5/31/2004 9:45 PM, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had this question posed to me on IRC and I didn't know the answer.
>
> If all that is needed to ensure integrity is that the WAL is fsynced,
> what is wrong with just going:
>
> wal_sync_method = fsync
> fsync = false
The assumption that WAL is all that is needed to ensure integrity is
wrong in the first place, unless you are going to keep the WAL forever
and never recycle the segments. What you're effectively asking for is
not to checkpoint any more.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #