On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Also, in general, I think that it's not a good idea to let dirty data > sit in shared_buffers forever. I'm unhappy about the change this > release cycle to skip checkpoints if we've written less than a full > WAL segment, and this seems like another step in that direction. It's > exposing us to needless risk of data loss. In 9.1, if you process a > transaction and, an hour later, the disk where pg_xlog is written > melts into a heap of molten slag, your transaction will be there, even > if you end up having to run pg_resetxlog.
Would the log really have been archived in 9.1? I don't think checkpoint_timeout caused a log switch, just a checkpoint which could happily be in the same file as the previous checkpoint. > In 9.2, it may well be that > xlog contains the only record of that transaction, and you're hosed. > The more work we do to postpone writing the data until the absolutely > last possible moment, the more likely it is that it won't be on disk > when we need it. Isn't that what archive_timeut is for? Should archive_timeout default to something like 5 min, rather than 0? Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
