Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Date
Msg-id 42CC7493.4060907@commandprompt.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
List pgsql-hackers
>>Tom, I think you're the only person that could or would be trusted to
>>make such a change. Even past the 8.1 freeze, I say we need to do
>>something now on this issue.
> 
> 
> I think if we document full_page_writes as similar to fsync in risk, we
> are OK for 8.1, but if something can be done easily, it sounds good.
> 
> Now that we have a GUC we can experiment with the full page write load
> and see how it can be improved.

Question, with this option if the power goes out will I just roll 
through the transaction logs like normal? Or are we talking the 
potential to have to use something like pg_resetxlog or similar?

If it is just roll through the transaction logs then I have no problem 
with it, let the user decide the level of reliance they have. If it can
cause actual, need to restore from backup level damage then it is a 
literall no go IMHO.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



> 


-- 
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Next
From: Oliver Jowett
Date:
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC