On 27 April 2016 at 17:04, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:On 27 April 2016 at 21:44, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > +1 (Abhijit's wording with data loss changed to data corruption)I'd suggest something like #fsync = on # flush data to disk for crash safety # (turning this off can cause # unrecoverable data corruption!)Looks good.The docs on fsync are already good, it's just a matter of making people think twice and actually look at them. If fsync=off and you turn it on, does it fsync anything at that point?Or does it mean only that future fsyncs will occur?
On 27 April 2016 at 21:44, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > +1 (Abhijit's wording with data loss changed to data corruption)I'd suggest something like #fsync = on # flush data to disk for crash safety # (turning this off can cause # unrecoverable data corruption!)Looks good.The docs on fsync are already good, it's just a matter of making people think twice and actually look at them.
Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > +1 (Abhijit's wording with data loss changed to data corruption)I'd suggest something like #fsync = on # flush data to disk for crash safety # (turning this off can cause # unrecoverable data corruption!)
pgsql-hackers by date:
Соглашаюсь с условиями обработки персональных данных
