mirror of https://github.com/postgres/postgres
parent
b4c315ba9e
commit
81fd7532a9
@ -1,34 +0,0 @@ |
||||
Fsync() patch (backend -F option) |
||||
================================= |
||||
|
||||
Normally, the Postgres'95 backend makes sure that updates are actually |
||||
committed to disk by calling the standard function fsync() in |
||||
several places. Fsync() should guarantee that every modification to |
||||
a certain file is actually written to disk and will not hang around |
||||
in write caches anymore. This increases the chance that a database |
||||
will still be usable after a system crash by a large amount. |
||||
|
||||
However, this operation severely slows down Postgres'95, because at all |
||||
those points it has to wait for the OS to flush the buffers. Especially |
||||
in one-shot operations, like creating a new database or loading lots |
||||
of data, you'll have a clear restart point if something goes wrong. That's |
||||
where the -F option kicks in: it simply disables the calls to fsync(). |
||||
|
||||
Without fsync(), the OS is allowed to do its best in buffering, sorting |
||||
and delaying writes, so this can be a _very_ big perfomance increase. However, |
||||
if the system crashes, large parts of the latest transactions will still hang |
||||
around in memory without having been committed to disk - lossage of data |
||||
is therefore almost certain to occur. |
||||
|
||||
So it's a tradeoff between data integrity and speed. When initializing a |
||||
database, I'd use it - if the machine crashes, you simply remove the files |
||||
created and redo the operation. The same goes for bulk-loading data: on |
||||
a crash, you remove the database and restore the backup you made before |
||||
starting the bulk-load (you always make backups before bulk-loading, |
||||
don't you?). |
||||
|
||||
Whether you want to use it in production, is up to you. If you trust your |
||||
operating system, your utility company, and your hardware, you might enable |
||||
it; however, keep in mind that you're running in an unsecure mode and that |
||||
performance gains will very much depend on access patterns (because it won't |
||||
help on reading data). I'd recommend against it. |
Loading…
Reference in new issue