To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] no universally correct setting for fsync 
In-reply-to: <4BE4AA33.7020700@agliodbs.com> 
References: <4BE3D3930200002500031382@gw.wicourts.gov>
	<4BE425F7.30804@dunslane.net>
	<4BE3E205020000250003138F@gw.wicourts.gov>
	<4BE4543D.8010309@agliodbs.com> <4BE4AA33.7020700@agliodbs.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
	message dated "Fri, 07 May 2010 17:02:59 -0700"
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 20:13:32 -0400
Message-ID: <4335.1273277612@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> This is what I have to replace the current fsync entry in config.sgml.

s/unexpected shutdown/system crash/, perhaps.  The wording you have
suggests that a forced Postgres stoppage produces a problem, which it
doesn't.  It takes a failure at the OS level or below to cause a
problem.

> I believe that the note about needing fsync for Warm Standby to work
> correctly is true, but could someone verify it?

AFAIK that's nonsense.  The filesystem state that pg_standby could see
will be updated in any case; pg_standby has no direct access to the bits
on the platters, any more than Postgres does.

			regards, tom lane