Skip to content
GitLab
Explore
Sign in
Register
Primary navigation
Search or go to…
Project
P
postgres-lambda-diff
Manage
Activity
Members
Labels
Plan
Issues
Issue boards
Milestones
Wiki
Code
Merge requests
Repository
Branches
Commits
Tags
Repository graph
Compare revisions
Snippets
Build
Pipelines
Jobs
Pipeline schedules
Artifacts
Deploy
Releases
Container Registry
Model registry
Operate
Environments
Monitor
Incidents
Analyze
Value stream analytics
Contributor analytics
CI/CD analytics
Repository analytics
Model experiments
Help
Help
Support
GitLab documentation
Compare GitLab plans
Community forum
Contribute to GitLab
Provide feedback
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Snippets
Groups
Projects
Show more breadcrumbs
Jakob Huber
postgres-lambda-diff
Commits
81fd7532
Commit
81fd7532
authored
24 years ago
by
Peter Eisentraut
Browse files
Options
Downloads
Patches
Plain Diff
Incorporate README.fsync into main documentation body
parent
b4c315ba
No related branches found
Branches containing commit
No related tags found
Tags containing commit
No related merge requests found
Changes
2
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
2 changed files
doc/README.fsync
+0
-34
0 additions, 34 deletions
doc/README.fsync
doc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml
+34
-6
34 additions, 6 deletions
doc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml
with
34 additions
and
40 deletions
doc/README.fsync
deleted
100644 → 0
+
0
−
34
View file @
b4c315ba
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.
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
doc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml
+
34
−
6
View file @
81fd7532
<!--
$Header: /cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml,v 1.1
4
2000/07/1
5 21:35:4
7 petere Exp $
$Header: /cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml,v 1.1
5
2000/07/1
6 14:47:5
7 petere Exp $
-->
<Chapter Id="runtime">
...
...
@@ -846,11 +846,39 @@ env PGOPTIONS='--geqo=off' psql
<term>FSYNC (<type>boolean</type>)</term>
<listitem>
<para>
When this is on (default), an <function>fsync()</function>
call is done after each transaction. Turning this off
increases performance but an operating system crash or power
outage might cause data corruption. (Note that a crash of
<productname>Postgres</productname> itself is not affected.)
If this is option is on, the <productname>Postgres</> backend
will use the <function>fsync()</> system call in several
places to make sure that updates are physically written to
disk and will not hang around in the write caches. This
increases the chance that a database installation will still
be usable after a operating system or hardware crashes by a
large amount. (Crashes of the database server itself do
<emphasis>not</> affect this consideration.)
</para>
<para>
However, this operation severely slows down
<productname>Postgres</>, because at all those points it has
to block and wait for the operating system to flush the
buffers. Without <function>fsync</>, the operating system is
allowed to do its best in buffering, sorting, and delaying
writes, so this can be a <emphasis>very</> big perfomance
increase. However, if the system crashes, parts of the data of
a transaction that has already been committed -- according to
the information on disk -- will still hang around in memory.
Inconsistent data (i.e., data corruption) is therefore likely
to occur.
</para>
<para>
This option is the subject of an eternal debate in the
<productname>Postgres</> user and developer communities. Some
always leave it off, some turn it off only for bulk loads,
where there is a clear restart point if something goes wrong,
some leave it on just to be on the safe side. Because it is
the safe side, on is also the default. If you trust your
operating system, your utility company, and your hardware, you
might want to disable it.
</para>
</listitem>
</varlistentry>
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
Preview
0%
Loading
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Save comment
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment