Shane Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Actually I thought that *all* the database had to have fsync() work > correctly; > not for integrity on failed transactions, but to maintain integrity during > checkpointing as well. But I could well be wrong!
I think you're write, but what I was thinking of is the scenario where WAL writes are done in small increments, then committed with fsync() once a full page has been written. With a sync mount this would result in the equivalent of fsync() for every small write, which would hurt a lot. I dimly recall this sort of thing being discussed in the past, but I don't know offhand whether PG does its WAL writes in small chunks or page-at-a-time. -Doug ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
