Tom Lane wrote:
> However, the big boys running on the same hardware are going to have the
> same problem.
>
> If you can figure out how to configure your drives not to report write
> complete until it's really complete, then you can feel secure with
> either Postgres or the big boys. Or you can
Tim Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You do not have to trust Postgres itself: in all cases we push the log
>> entries out to the OS before declaring a transaction committed.
> In all cases while fsync mode is enabled, not in all cases (including
> no-fs
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:16:23 -0400
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You do not have to trust Postgres itself: in all cases we push the log
> entries out to the OS before declaring a transaction committed.
In all cases while fsync mode is enabled, not in all cases (including
no-fsync) right?
Tim Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (in summation...) So if data consistency is the most important thing to
> me, performance be damned, I still, as of 7.2.1, want to run in fsync
> mode?
Yup. no-fsync is only suitable if you trust your OS and power supply.
You do not have to trust Postgres
>From the FAQ:
-
PostgreSQL runs in two modes. Normal fsync mode flushes every completed
transaction to disk, guaranteeing that if the OS crashes or loses power in
the next few seconds, all your data is safely stored on disk. In
