Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm wondering if it would be wise to throw a warning at startup if
> either sync_commit or fsync were set to off, ideally so that it would
> both appear in the logs as well as in output from pg_ctl.
Egad. And no doubt also complain about politically inc
On Jun 25, 2007, at 3:30 AM, Dave Page wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
So, although its a knife edge decision, I'd say go with
synchronous_commit = off.
I agree - I'm not entirely sure why but it just feels more natural
than asynchronous_commit = on. Plus the reasons you give seem valid.
On the
> synchronous_commit
> Idea: Greg Stark
> Supporters: Simon, Josh, Tom, Bruce, Florian
There was one more:
asynchronous_commit
Idea: Florian G. Pflug
Supporters: none
But if you are calling the feature that (which imho is good), the guc
might as well get that name.
Andreas
Simon Riggs wrote:
So, although its a knife edge decision, I'd say go with
synchronous_commit = off.
I agree - I'm not entirely sure why but it just feels more natural than
asynchronous_commit = on. Plus the reasons you give seem valid.
Regards, Dave
---(end of bro
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 10:01 +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> > synchronous_commit
> > Idea: Greg Stark
> > Supporters: Simon, Josh, Tom, Bruce, Florian
>
> There was one more:
> asynchronous_commit
> Idea: Florian G. Pflug
> Supporters: none
>
> But if you are calling the feature that (
