From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method |
Date: | 2005-08-08 22:02:18 |
Message-ID: | 200508082202.j78M2I111247@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marko Kreen wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 05:38:59PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Marko Kreen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 03:56:39PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > Currently, here are the options available for wal_sync_method:
> > > >
> > > > #wal_sync_method = fsync # the default varies across platforms:
> > > > # fsync, fdatasync, fsync_writethrough,
> > > > # open_sync, open_datasync
> > >
> > > On same topic:
> > >
> > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2005-07/msg00811.php
> > >
> > > Why does win32 PostgreSQL allow data corruption by default?
> >
> > It behaves the same on Unix as Win32, and if you have battery-backed
> > cache, you don't need writethrough, so we don't have it as default. I
> > am going to write a section in the manual for 8.1 about these
> > reliability issues.
>
> For some reason I don't see "corruped database after crash"
> reports on Unixen. Why?
They use SCSI or battery-backed RAID cards more often?
> Also, why can't win32 be safe without battery-backed cache?
> I can't see such requirement on other platforms.
If it uses SCSI, it is secure, just like Unix.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-08-08 22:02:37 | Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method |
Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2005-08-08 21:51:13 | Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method |