On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 16:00, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Kevin Grittner > <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: >> Someone just posted to the -admin list with a database corrupted >> while running with fsync=off. I was all set to refer him to the >> documentation explaining why he should stop doing this, but to my >> surprise the documentation waffles on the issue way past what I >> think is reasonable. >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/runtime-config-wal.html#GUC-FSYNC >> >> There are dire-sounding statements interspersed with: >> >> | using fsync results in a performance penalty >> >> | Due to the risks involved, there is no universally correct setting >> | for fsync. >> >> | If you trust your operating system, your hardware, and your >> | utility company (or your battery backup), you can consider >> | disabling fsync. >> >> Isn't this a little too rosy a picture to paint? > > I agree. I've always thought this part of the documentation made > setting fsync=off much more reasonable than I feel it to be.
+1, definitely. fsync=off should only be done if you *really* understand what it means, and that requires a lot more explanation than that... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
