Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:31:51 -0700 (PDT) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mikko_Ty=F6l=E4j=E4rvi?= <mbsd@pacbell.net> To: Dan Langille <dan@langille.org> Cc: Jason Stone <freebsd-performance@dfmm.org> Subject: Re: Tuning for PostGreSQL Database Message-ID: <20030722092917.L18121@atlas.home> In-Reply-To: <3F1D2208.2124.52B03E6A@localhost> References: <20030721192645.GB61464@perrin.int.nxad.com> <3F1D2208.2124.52B03E6A@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Dan Langille wrote: > On 21 Jul 2003 at 20:35, Jason Stone wrote: > > > I feel like this is an extremely important point. If softupdates changes > > the semantics of sync(2)/fsync(2), then it absolutely has to be off for a > > postgresql server because postgresql counts on fsync in order to make its > > durability guarantees. > > If this means all FreeBSD-PostgreSQL users need to change their > setup, we need to do something ASAP. I'd first recommend getting the > confirmation from the PostgreSQL team, then adjusting the PostgreSQL > documenation and the FreeBSD port. > > Does anyone feel this is urgent enough that they'll do something > about it? I think you can relax. Check the mailing lists, or google a bit and you'll find similar discussions. For example: <http://www.ornl.gov/cts/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/2000/02/msg00703.html>; In short: fsync() works with soft-updates. Too many things would break otherwise. $.02, /Mikko
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030722092917.L18121>