On 28 April 2016 at 22:30, David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2016, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> On 27 April 2016 at 17:04, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> >>> On 27 April 2016 at 21:44, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> >>>> Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >>>> > +1 (Abhijit's wording with data loss changed to data corruption) >>>> >>>> I'd suggest something like >>>> >>>> #fsync = on # flush data to disk for crash >>>> safety >>>> # (turning this off can cause >>>> # unrecoverable data >>>> corruption!) >>>> >>>> >>> Looks good. >>> >>> The docs on fsync are already good, it's just a matter of making people >>> think twice and actually look at them. >>> >> >> If fsync=off and you turn it on, does it fsync anything at that point? >> >> Or does it mean only that future fsyncs will occur? >> >> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-wal.html > > 4th paragraph in the fsync section. > Thanks. I've never touched that parameter! But I could have read the docs. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
