On 7/6/10 4:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> To recap the previous discussion on this thread, we ended up changing
> the behavior of 9.0 so that it only sends WAL which has been written
> to the OS *and flushed*, because sending unflushed WAL to the standby
> is unsafe. The standby can get ahead of the master while still
> believing that the databases are in sync, due to the fact that after
> an SR reconnect we rewind to the start of the current WAL segment.
> This results in a silently corrupt standby database.
What was the final decision on behavior if fsync=off?
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
