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

From Oliver Jowett
Subject Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Date
Msg-id 42CC7BF9.3060504@opencloud.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs wrote:

> I agree we *must* have the GUC, but we also *must* have a way for crash
> recovery to tell us for certain that it has definitely worked, not just
> maybe worked.

Doesn't the same argument apply to the existing fsync = off case? i.e.
we already have a case where we don't provide a crash-recovery guarantee.

-O


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Next
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] By Passed Domain Constraints