Scott Carey wrote:
Moral of the story: Nothing is 100% safe, so sometimes a small bit of KNOWN
risk is perfectly fine. There is always UNKNOWN risk. If one risks losing
256K of cached data on an SSD if you're really unlucky with timing, how
dangerous is that versus the chance that the raid card or other hardware
barfs and takes out your whole WAL?
I think the point of the paranoia in this thread is that if you're
introducing a component with a known risk in it, you're really asking
for trouble because (as you point out) it's hard enough to keep a system
running just through the unexpected ones that shouldn't have happened at
all. No need to make that even harder by introducing something that is
*known* to fail under some conditions.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.2ndQuadrant.com
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
