On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>>> There are just as many people that are running with scissors that are now
>>> running (or attempting to run) our elephant in production. Does it make
>>> sense to remove fsync (and possibly full_page_writes) from such a visible
>>> place as postgresql.conf?
>>
>> -1
>>
>> Anyone turning off fsync without even for a moment considering the
>> consequences has only themselves to blame. I can't imagine why you'd
>> want to remove full_page_writes or make it less visible either, since
>> in principle it ought to be perfectly fine to turn it off in
>> production once its verified as safe.
>
> -1 for its removal as well. It is still useful for developers to
> emulate CPU-bounded loads...
I fought to remove fsync before so i understand JD concerns. and yes,
i have seen fsync=off in the field too...
what about not removing it but not showing it in postgresql.conf? as a
side note, i wonder why trace_sort is not in postgresql.conf...
other option is to make it a compile setting, that why if you want to
have it you need to compile and postgres' developers do that routinely
anyway
just my 2c
--
Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com
Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte 24x7 y capacitación