On 5/31/2004 9:45 PM, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Hi,
I had this question posed to me on IRC and I didn't know the answer.
If all that is needed to ensure integrity is that the WAL is fsynced,
what is wrong with just going:
wal_sync_method = fsync
fsync = false
The assumption that WAL is all t
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> what is wrong with just going:
> wal_sync_method = fsync
> fsync = false
fsync = false causes wal_sync_method to be ignored. You get no syncing.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had this question posed to me on IRC and I didn't know the answer.
>
> If all that is needed to ensure integrity is that the WAL is fsynced,
> what is wrong with just going:
>
> wal_sync_method = fsync
> fsync = false
wal_sync_method is only used if f
Hi,
I had this question posed to me on IRC and I didn't know the answer.
If all that is needed to ensure integrity is that the WAL is fsynced,
what is wrong with just going:
wal_sync_method = fsync
fsync = false
??
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP
