On 09/28/2017 01:48 PM, Bill Ricker wrote: > The lack of coherence due to OS cave not being flushed should still be a > concern.
In the general case, yes. In my particular case I'm specifically concerned only with data that's stored transactionally to the extent that (and I really hope that I'm not grossly mistaken on this...) I'd expect to survive an unexpected power-loss, like PostgreSQL and git. (and in the case of git, I'm only talking about its internal object-store, *not working trees*, which I know from experience *cannot* be expected to survive that-- in other words, always sync between "git pull" or "git checkout" and a power-cut!) > OTOH I saw a storage level replication system propagate corruption to the > remote site's copy of the Production DBMS ... > So it perfectly replicated the primary's failure. Oops. Easiest recovery was > restoring a nightly backup to the test > system since both Prod nodes were so hosed. > This is bit one reason I like best-effort (asynchronous) dbms level > transaction replication. The remote is 30s behind > but is in a consistent state. Most users can handle checking if their last > txn before crash survived; most will even if > not instructed to! (Even if asked not to!) ☺ -- Connect with me on GNU social network: <https://status.hackerposse.com/rozzin> Not on the network? Ask me for an invitation to the nhcrossing.com social hub _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
