Re: [HACKERS] Postgres Speed or lack thereof
| От | Vadim Mikheev |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Postgres Speed or lack thereof |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 36A41A0F.8E24F3F2@krs.ru обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Postgres Speed or lack thereof (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > > Vadim Mikheev <vadim@krs.ru> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> However, with a UPS and an OS that only crashes about once every > >> other year, I feel pretty secure using -F ... > > > However, it's easy to crash Postgres itself and lose > > committed transactions -:( > > Surely not? The docs say (and a quick look at the code confirms) > that -F suppresses calls to fsync(2). It does not suppress writes. > Thus, a commit will still write the data out to kernel disk buffers. > All that fsync does is force the kernel to execute immediate disk > writes for those buffers. If I don't fsync, and the backend crashes, > the modified file data is still in kernel disk buffers and the kernel > is still responsible for seeing that those dirty buffers get written > out eventually. You're right. Vadim
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: