On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Dave Page wrote:2. Another question is what to do with 8.0.X? Do we backpatch this for Win32 performance? Can we test it enough to know it will work well? 8.0.2 is going to have a more rigorous testing cycle because of the buffer manager changes.
This question was asked earlier, and iirc, a few people said yes, and no-one said no. I'm most definitely in the yes camp.
I have backpatched O_SYNC for Win32 to 8.0.X. Everyone seems to agree it should be supported by wal_sync_method. --- the "default" issue still needs discussion.
Even with Magnus' explanation that we're talking Hardware, and not OS risk issues, I still think that the default should be the "least risky", with the other options being well explained from both a risk/performance standpoint, so that its a conscious decision on the admin's side ...
Any 'risk of data loss' has always been taboo, making the default behaviour be to increase that risk seems to be a step backwards to me .. having the option, fine ... effectively forcing that option is what I'm against (and, by forcing, I mean how many ppl "change from the default"?)
---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
---------------------------(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
