sync vs. fsync question

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 fsync is true.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> 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

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 that is needed to ensure integrity is
wrong in the first place, unless you are going to keep the WAL forever
and never recycle the segments. What you're effectively asking for is
not to checkpoint any more.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #