Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Or are you talking about changing the variable "fsync"? If so, doesn't >> "fsync=off" also change the behavior of other parts of the code, so it's >> not just WAL, which means it'd be pretty unsafe *anyway* unless you >> actually "sync" the disks, and not just fsync? > > No, because the other uses of it are controlling whether to issue > fsync() calls dynamically. The use in get_sync_bit is the only one > that sets persistent state. In fact md.c goes out of its way to ensure > that changing fsync on the fly behaves as expected.
Not having looked at md.c (I confess...) but don't we have a problem in case we have closed the file without fsyncing it, and then change the fsync parameter? Either way, I see your point, but I doubt it's worth getting upset over. Funning with fsync=off in the first place is bad, and if it takes you one WAL segment to "recover", I think that's acceptable... //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers