On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Tom Lane wrote: > How's that again? 7.1 with -F is just as much at the mercy of a system > crash as previous releases with -F, because it's not fsync'ing the WAL > log. In either case, -F is only for those who trust their hardware + OS > + UPS, or perhaps are running development systems and care more for > speed than data recoverability. What if the WAL log is on a partition that is mounted synchronously? M Carling
- Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Tatsuo Ishii
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad perfor... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad pe... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 b... Hiroshi Inoue
- RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Schmidt, Peter
- RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance The Hermit Hacker
- RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Schmidt, Peter
- RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Michael Ansley
- RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Michael Ansley
- Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Tom Lane
- RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance M Carling
- RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Michael Ansley
- Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Dmitry Morozovsky
