Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm a bit surprised that the write-cache lead to a corrupt database, and not > merely lost transactions. I had the impression that drives still handled the > writes in the order received.
There'd be little point in having a cache if they did, I should think. I thought the point of the cache was to allow the disk to schedule I/O in an order that minimizes seek time (ie, such a disk has got its own elevator queue or similar). > You may find that if you check this case again that the "usually no data > corruption" is actually "usually lost transactions but no corruption". That's a good point, but it seems difficult to be sure of the last reportedly-committed transaction in a powerfail situation. Maybe if you drive the test from a client on another machine? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings