Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE4769B1@algol.sollentuna.se обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответы |
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
>> * Linux, with fsync (default), write-cache enabled: usually no data >> corruption, but two runs which had > >Are you verifying that all the data that was committed was >actually stored? Or >just verifying that the database works properly after rebooting? I verified the data. >I'm a bit surprised that the write-cache lead to a corrupt >database, and not >merely lost transactions. I had the impression that drives >still handled the >writes in the order received. In this case, it was lost transactions, not data corruption. Should be more careful. I had copy/pasted the "no data corruption", should specify what was lost. A couple of the latest transactions were gone, but the database came up in a consistent state, if a bit old. Since Linux wasn't the stuff I actually was testing, I didn't run very many tests on it though. //Magnus
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: