Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 05:18:28PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:56:58PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > 2. remove fsync parameter > > > > > > Why? Wouldn't fsync=off still speed up checkpoints? ISTM you'd still > > > want this for things like database restores. > > > > I think we will remove fsync in favor of the new delay, and allow -1 to > > be the same behavior as fsync off. > > Well, presumably we'd still allow fsync for some number of versions...
No. > Actually, I don't know that combining both settings is a wise move. The > delay should still provide crash protection, whereas with fsync=off > you've got absolutely no protection from anything. That's a huge > difference, and one that IMHO warrants a separate setting (and a big, > fat WARNING in the comment for that setting). Yes, it needs a warning, or perhaps we just tell people to set it to something high and that is all they can do. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
