Re: 9.6 and fsync=off

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Simon Riggs
Тема Re: 9.6 and fsync=off
Дата
Msg-id CANP8+jKtR+MCL3YAvT5b_aP3g-E5Mq_Bq5G4bh1oMcijnrRVcw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: 9.6 and fsync=off  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 28 April 2016 at 22:30, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, April 28, 2016, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 27 April 2016 at 17:04, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 27 April 2016 at 21:44, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> +1 (Abhijit's wording with data loss changed to data corruption)

I'd suggest something like

#fsync = on                             # flush data to disk for crash safety
                                        # (turning this off can cause
                                        # unrecoverable data corruption!)


Looks good.

The docs on fsync are already good, it's just a matter of making people think twice and actually look at them. 

If fsync=off and you turn it on, does it fsync anything at that point?

Or does it mean only that future fsyncs will occur?


http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-wal.html

4th paragraph in the fsync section.

Thanks. I've never touched that parameter!  But I could have read the docs. 

--
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "David G. Johnston"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: 9.6 and fsync=off
Следующее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: 9.6 and fsync=off