Re: [HACKERS] Re: Recovery of PGSQL after system crash failing!!!

2001-02-15 Thread Ryan Kirkpatrick
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Tom Lane writes: > > > Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Also, could the "-F" option be disabled now that WAL is enabled? Or is > > > there still some reason to encourage/allow folks to use it? > > > > I was the one who put it back i

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Recovery of PGSQL after system crash failing!!!

2001-02-14 Thread Bruce Momjian
> Tom Lane writes: > > > Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Also, could the "-F" option be disabled now that WAL is enabled? Or is > > > there still some reason to encourage/allow folks to use it? > > > > I was the one who put it back in after Vadim turned it off ;-) ... and > > I'

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Recovery of PGSQL after system crash failing!!!

2001-02-14 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes: > Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Also, could the "-F" option be disabled now that WAL is enabled? Or is > > there still some reason to encourage/allow folks to use it? > > I was the one who put it back in after Vadim turned it off ;-) ... and > I'll object to any

[HACKERS] Re: Recovery of PGSQL after system crash failing!!!

2001-02-14 Thread Vadim Mikheev
> > It removes the need to disable fsync to get best performance! > > -F performance is still better, only the difference is not so big as before. Well, when "checkpoint seek in logs" will be implemented difference will be the same - lost consistency. > > Since there is a fundamental recovery

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Recovery of PGSQL after system crash failing!!!

2001-02-13 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Also, could the "-F" option be disabled now that WAL is enabled? Or is > there still some reason to encourage/allow folks to use it? I was the one who put it back in after Vadim turned it off ;-) ... and I'll object to any attempt to remove the option

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Recovery of PGSQL after system crash failing!!!

2001-02-13 Thread Bruce Momjian
> Since there is a fundamental recovery problem if the WAL file > disappears, then perhaps we should have a workaround which can ignore > the requirement for that file on startup? Or maybe we do already? > Vadim?? > > Also, could the "-F" option be disabled now that WAL is enabled? Or is > there

[HACKERS] Re: Recovery of PGSQL after system crash failing!!!

2001-02-13 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> Guilty as charged I am afraind... :( Here, I though with WAL and > all (bad pun :), I would not need fsync anymore and decided to be > reckless. Guess I ought to reconsider that decision Though wasn't WAL > supposed to remove the need for fsync, or was it just to improve recovery > a