Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default wal_sync_method to open_sync for

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Dave Page wrote:
>>> 2.  Another question is what to do with 8.0.X?  Do we
>>> backpatch this for
>>> Win32 performance?  Can we test it enough to know it will work well?
>>> 8.0.2 is going to have a more rigorous testing cycle because of the
>>> buffer manager changes.
>>
>> This question was asked earlier, and iirc, a few people said yes, and
>> no-one said no. I'm most definitely in the yes camp.
>
> I have backpatched O_SYNC for Win32 to 8.0.X.  Everyone seems to agree
> it should be supported by wal_sync_method.  --- the "default" issue
> still needs discussion.

Even with Magnus' explanation that we're talking Hardware, and not OS risk 
issues, I still think that the default should be the "least risky", with 
the other options being well explained from both a risk/performance 
standpoint, so that its a conscious decision on the admin's side ...

Any 'risk of data loss' has always been taboo, making the default 
behaviour be to increase that risk seems to be a step backwards to me .. 
having the option, fine ... effectively forcing that option is what I'm 
against (and, by forcing, I mean how many ppl "change from the default"?)


  ----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email protected]           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster