"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> It seriously narrows down the problem space to know that PostgreSQL does
>> *not*
>> allow data loss if it's physically possible to prevent it.
> But we do don't we? fsync = off, full_page_writes = off?
One of the things that's really attractive about the proposed mode is
that it does *not* create a risk of data corruption (assuming that
Simon's analyzed it correctly --- I think the clog code in particular
needs a look). What you risk is that when the database comes back up,
its state may reflect an instant up to X seconds before the time of the
crash, rather than exactly the crash time. It seems to me that that's
way better than fsync = off, which allows unlimited corruption.
I agree that we ought to look at some performance numbers before
accepting the patch, but I think Josh's argument that this opens us
up to major corruption problems is probably wrong. The question is
whether your application can tolerate loss of "very recent" transactions,
and I think there are plenty where it can.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
