On 2015-05-08 22:08:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > That seems a bit better. I think it's really important, if we're > going to start to try to make fsync=off anything other than a toy,
I think it's long past that. I've seen many, many people use it during initial data loading. > that we document really clearly the circumstances in which it is or is > not safe: Yea, we really should have done that a long time ago. > - If you crash while fsync=off, your cluster may be corrupted. HW crash, right? > - If you crash while fsync=on, but it was off at the last checkpoint, > your cluster may be corrupted. > - If you turn fsync=off, do stuff, turn fsync=on, and checkpoint > successfully, a subsequent crash should not corrupt anything. Yep. > Of course, even the last one isn't totally bullet-proof. Suppose one > backend fails to absorb the new setting for some reason... I've a hard time worrying much about that one... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers