From: Ireneusz Pluta <ipluta@wp.pl>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Background fsck
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:59:08 +0200
Message-ID: <4D9CF03C.1020808@wp.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim3SY4-P1xzxxfjB9BpvARfWd-Awg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D9CEA3F.5050603@wp.pl>
<BANLkTim3SY4-P1xzxxfjB9BpvARfWd-Awg@mail.gmail.com>
But waiting so much time (like now) during foreground fsck of a large data
>> filesystem after unclean shutdown, makes me to come to this group to ask
>> whether I really need to avoid background fsck on a PostgreSQL machine?
>> Could I hear your opinions?
> Shouldn't a journaling file system just come back up almost immediately?
>
it's ufs2 with softupdates in my case. That's why I am asking abot background fsck.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: ipluta@wp.pl, scott.marlowe@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Background fsck
In-Reply-To: <4D9CF03C.1020808@wp.pl>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox