Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Well, in that case, it should be on the open-items list. If the system >> is still behaving that way, it's a bug.
> Is it? Sync rep requires fsync on the standby. If you then explicitly > turn off fsync on the standby then it has a performance impact, as > documented. No, that's utter nonsense. If the system is behaving that way, then it's a bug. If you don't think it's a bug, then you misunderstand what the fsync GUC is supposed to do. What fsync=off is supposed to do is cause every attempted fsync to succeed instantly. It is *not possible* for that to result in a performance slowdown compared to fsyncs that take nonzero time. Unless someone's broken it. The documented behavior is broken. Period. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers