fOn Wed, May 09, 2012 at 03:02:23PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 9 May 2012 13:48, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > >> Let me point out that our documentation says nothing about it being > >> written to the kernel --- it just says "has received the commit record > >> of the transaction to memory." > > > > Maybe remote_receive would be better. If we're actually writing it > > back to the kernel before acknowledging the commit, that seems like an > > implementation defect more than anything else, since it does not - > > AFAICS - provide any additional, useful guarantee. > > It does provide an additional guarantee, but I accept you personally > may not find that useful.
The guarantee is that if Postgres crashes, we don't lose any data, but not if the OS crashes (right?) because that isn't clear now. > If the docs don't describe it well enough, then we can change the docs. Well, we should make that clear in the docs then. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
