On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> >> wrote: >>> There are just as many people that are running with scissors that are now >>> running (or attempting to run) our elephant in production. Does it make >>> sense to remove fsync (and possibly full_page_writes) from such a visible >>> place as postgresql.conf? >> >> -1 >> >> Anyone turning off fsync without even for a moment considering the >> consequences has only themselves to blame. I can't imagine why you'd >> want to remove full_page_writes or make it less visible either, since >> in principle it ought to be perfectly fine to turn it off in >> production once its verified as safe. > > -1 for its removal as well. It is still useful for developers to > emulate CPU-bounded loads...
I fought to remove fsync before so i understand JD concerns. and yes, i have seen fsync=off in the field too... what about not removing it but not showing it in postgresql.conf? as a side note, i wonder why trace_sort is not in postgresql.conf... other option is to make it a compile setting, that why if you want to have it you need to compile and postgres' developers do that routinely anyway just my 2c -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte 24x7 y capacitación -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
