Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > >> Having fsync for regular data files and sync for WAL segment a comfortable > >> compramise? Or this is going to use fsync for all of them. > > > I think we still need sync() for WAL because sometimes backends are > > going to have to write their own buffers, and we don't want them using > > fsync or it will be very slow. > > sync() for WAL is a complete nonstarter, because it gives you no > guarantees at all about whether the write has occurred. I don't really > care what you say about speed; this is a correctness point.
Sorry, I meant sync() is needed for recycling WAL (checkpoint), not for WAL writes. I assume that's what Shridhar meant, but now I am not sure. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
