Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default wal_sync_method to open_sync for
- From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
- To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org, Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
- Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default wal_sync_method to open_sync for
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:00:01 +0800
- Message-id: <423A3621(dot)9030506(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Even with Magnus' explanation that we're talking Hardware, and not OS
risk issues, I still think that the default should be the "least risky",
with the other options being well explained from both a risk/performance
standpoint, so that its a conscious decision on the admin's side ...
Any 'risk of data loss' has always been taboo, making the default
behaviour be to increase that risk seems to be a step backwards to me ..
having the option, fine ... effectively forcing that option is what I'm
against (and, by forcing, I mean how many ppl "change from the default"?)
But doesn't making it the default just make it identical to the default
freebsd configuration? ie. Identical risk?
Chris
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index