Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question
Date
Msg-id 878y5dqlca.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question  ("Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net> writes:

> > I'm a bit surprised that the write-cache lead to a corrupt database, and
> > not merely lost transactions. I had the impression that drives still
> > handled the writes in the order received.
> 
> In this case, it was lost transactions, not data corruption. 
> ...
> A couple of the latest transactions were gone, but the database came up
> in a consistent state, if a bit old.

That's interesting. It would be very interesting to know how reliably this is
true. It could potentially vary depending on the drive firmware.

I can't see any painless way to package up this kind of test for people to run
though. Powercycling machines repeatedly really isn't fun and takes a long
time. And testing this on vmware doesn't buy us anything.

-- 
greg



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Can we remove SnapshotSelf?
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent