Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Dave Page wrote: > >>> 2. Another question is what to do with 8.0.X? Do we > >>> backpatch this for > >>> Win32 performance? Can we test it enough to know it will work well? > >>> 8.0.2 is going to have a more rigorous testing cycle because of the > >>> buffer manager changes. > >> > >> This question was asked earlier, and iirc, a few people said yes, and > >> no-one said no. I'm most definitely in the yes camp. > > > > I have backpatched O_SYNC for Win32 to 8.0.X. Everyone seems to agree > > it should be supported by wal_sync_method. --- the "default" issue > > still needs discussion. > > Even with Magnus' explanation that we're talking Hardware, and not OS risk > issues, I still think that the default should be the "least risky", with > the other options being well explained from both a risk/performance > standpoint, so that its a conscious decision on the admin's side ... > > Any 'risk of data loss' has always been taboo, making the default > behaviour be to increase that risk seems to be a step backwards to me .. > having the option, fine ... effectively forcing that option is what I'm > against (and, by forcing, I mean how many ppl "change from the default"?)
I understand that logic. Please see my posting that their fsync is something we don't have on Unix. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
