Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This seems, um, hard to believe. Did he shut down the standard syncer
> daemon? I have never seen a Unix system that would allow more than
> thirty seconds' worth of unwritten buffers to accumulate, and would not
> care to use one if it existed.
Well it w
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've seen some pretty severe damage caused by calling sync(2) on a loaded
> system. The system in question was in the process of copying data to an NFS
> mounted archival site. When the sync hit basically everything stopped until
> the buffered network write
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Consider either a box with many different postgresql instances, or one
> > that run both postgresql and other software. Issuing sync() in that
> > sitaution will cause sync of a lot of data that probably doesn't need
> > syncing.
> > Bu
> Consider either a box with many different postgresql instances, or one
> that run both postgresql and other software. Issuing sync() in that
> sitaution will cause sync of a lot of data that probably doesn't need
> syncing.
> But it'd probably be a very good thing on a dedicated server, giving
> I have talked to Tom today and he is willing to implement the
> discussed method of doing fsync on every file modified
> between checkpoints, and add unlink handling for open files for Win32.
Great news. I'm sure this will benefig Unix platforms as well, when
taking into account the discussion
