On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > 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?
I'm not sure we made any decision, per se, but if you use fsync=off in combination with SR and experience an unexpected crash-and-reboot on the master, you will be sad. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
