Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> >> Having fsync for regular data files and sync for WAL segment a comfortable
> >> compramise? Or this is going to use fsync for all of them.
>
> > I think we still need sync() for WAL because sometimes backends are
> > going to have to write their own buffers, and we don't want them using
> > fsync or it will be very slow.
>
> sync() for WAL is a complete nonstarter, because it gives you no
> guarantees at all about whether the write has occurred. I don't really
> care what you say about speed; this is a correctness point.
Sorry, I meant sync() is needed for recycling WAL (checkpoint), not for
WAL writes. I assume that's what Shridhar meant, but now I am not sure.
-- 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,
Pennsylvania19073
