Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 05:18:28PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:56:58PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > > 2. remove fsync parameter
> > > 
> > > Why? Wouldn't fsync=off still speed up checkpoints? ISTM you'd still
> > > want this for things like database restores.
> > 
> > I think we will remove fsync in favor of the new delay, and allow -1 to
> > be the same behavior as fsync off.
> Well, presumably we'd still allow fsync for some number of versions...


> Actually, I don't know that combining both settings is a wise move. The
> delay should still provide crash protection, whereas with fsync=off
> you've got absolutely no protection from anything. That's a huge
> difference, and one that IMHO warrants a separate setting (and a big,
> fat WARNING in the comment for that setting).

Yes, it needs a warning, or perhaps we just tell people to set it to
something high and that is all they can do.

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to