Re: Changing the default wal_sync_method to open_sync for - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Christopher Kings-Lynne
Subject Re: Changing the default wal_sync_method to open_sync for
Date
Msg-id 423A3621.9030506@familyhealth.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Changing the default wal_sync_method to open_sync for  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
> 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"?)

But doesn't making it the default just make it identical to the default
freebsd configuration?  ie. Identical risk?

Chris

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Lockfile restart failure is still there :-(
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Lockfile restart failure is still there :-(