> > > Also, why can't win32 be safe without battery-backed cache?
> > > I can't see such requirement on other platforms.
> >
> > It can, you just need to learn how to configure your
> system. There are
> > two different options to make it safe on win32 without
> battery backed
> > cache:
>
> I personally do not use PostgreSQL in win32 (yet - this may
> change). I just felt the pain of a guy who tried...
Didn't mean "you" as in you personally, meant "you" as in the user.
Sorry.
> > in traditional windows style *a single checkbox* in the harddisk
> > configuration.
> > (Granted, you need a modern windows for that. On older
> windows it's a
> > registry key)
>
> I think PostgreSQL should reliable by default.
For that I think we need to set it to fsync() on all platforms. it's the
least unsafe one on POSIX and it's the safe one on Win32.
> Now with the Windows port there are lot of people who just
> try it out on regular desktop machine.
Sure, but if you're just trying it out, it's not going to kill you if
you lose the data...
> With point-n-click installer there's no need to read docs and
> after experiencing the unreliability they won't take it as
> serious database.
Well the same reasoning applies to the fact that they won't take it as a
serious database because it's too slow.
Perhaps we need to provide an option in the installer to controll what
goes in the initialized database. With an explanation ("don't enable
this if you use IDE disks and care about your data").
> > I have some code floating in my tree to issue a WARNING on
> startup if
> > write cache is enabled and postgresql is not using
> writethrough. It's
> > not quite ready yet, but if such a thing would be accepted post
> > feature-freeze I can have it finished in good time before 8.1. It
> > would be quite simple (looking at just the main data directory for
> > example, ignoring tablespaces), but if you're dealing with complex
> > installations you'd better have a clue about how windows
> works anyway...
>
> Hey, thats a good idea, irrespective whether the default
> changes or not.
>
> I think if it's just couple of checks and then printf, it
> should not meet much resistance.
That's the general idea - I'm hoping it will be that simpel at least :-)
//Magnus