Re: Winner of naming discussions: Synchronous Commit - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: Winner of naming discussions: Synchronous Commit
Date
Msg-id E0D2C3E0-BD5C-4422-9DC6-4FBEF1D1FA31@decibel.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Winner of naming discussions: Synchronous Commit  (Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>)
Responses Re: Winner of naming discussions: Synchronous Commit
List pgsql-hackers
On Jun 25, 2007, at 3:30 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> So, although its a knife edge decision, I'd say go with
>> synchronous_commit = off.
>
> I agree - I'm not entirely sure why but it just feels more natural  
> than asynchronous_commit = on. Plus the reasons you give seem valid.

On the flip-side, experienced DBAs are likely tuned into anything  
labeled as "asynchronous"...

I'm wondering if it would be wise to throw a warning at startup if  
either sync_commit or fsync were set to off, ideally so that it would  
both appear in the logs as well as in output from pg_ctl.
--
Jim Nasby                                            jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Bugtraq: Having Fun With PostgreSQL
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Winner of naming discussions: Synchronous Commit