On 2016-01-22 21:32:29 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Group shot with 3), 4) and 5). Well, there is no data loss here, > putting me in the direction of considering this addition of an fsync > as an optimization and not a bug.
I think this is an extremely weak argument. The reasoning when exactly a loss of file is acceptable is complicated. In many cases adding an additional fsync won't add measurable cost, given the frequency of operations and/or the cost of surrounding operations. Now, if you can make an argument why something is potentially impacting performance *and* definitely not required: OK, then we can discuss that. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
