Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20B93632438 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 11:24:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 39704-08 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 14:24:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2501632337 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 11:24:49 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o47EOmsA012204; Fri, 7 May 2010 10:24:48 -0400 (EDT) To: "Kevin Grittner" cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: no universally correct setting for fsync In-reply-to: <4BE3D3930200002500031382@gw.wicourts.gov> References: <4BE3D3930200002500031382@gw.wicourts.gov> Comments: In-reply-to "Kevin Grittner" message dated "Fri, 07 May 2010 08:47:15 -0500" Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 10:24:47 -0400 Message-ID: <12203.1273242287@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201005/362 X-Sequence-Number: 162025 "Kevin Grittner" writes: > | If you trust your operating system, your hardware, and your > | utility company (or your battery backup), you can consider > | disabling fsync. > Isn't this a little too rosy a picture to paint? I think that statement is true as far as it goes, but I agree with rejiggering the surrounding text. The whole thing was written back when Postgres was by far the least reliable component of the stack. It isn't anymore. We should make it clear that fsync=off is not ever recommended for production. regards, tom lane