Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: 9.6 and fsync=off - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: 9.6 and fsync=off
Date
Msg-id CANP8+jLAph=Gk1hQy_+o8CvgxuHahZpgh7kqSy2LMq1+OsJS1A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 9.6 and fsync=off  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: 9.6 and fsync=off  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Re: 9.6 and fsync=off  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view
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?

--
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: 9.6 and fsync=off
Next
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] Breakage with VACUUM ANALYSE + partitions