Re: Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers
Date
Msg-id 4C350338.8050501@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers
List pgsql-hackers
On 7/6/10 4:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> To recap the previous discussion on this thread, we ended up changing
> the behavior of 9.0 so that it only sends WAL which has been written
> to the OS *and flushed*, because sending unflushed WAL to the standby
> is unsafe.  The standby can get ahead of the master while still
> believing that the databases are in sync, due to the fact that after
> an SR reconnect we rewind to the start of the current WAL segment.
> This results in a silently corrupt standby database.

What was the final decision on behavior if fsync=off?

--                                  -- Josh Berkus                                    PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                        http://www.pgexperts.com
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add note that using PL/Python 2 and 3 in the same session will
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.