Craig Ringer wrote: > On 24/06/10 12:42, Iwao Shikase wrote: > > > In my environment, Database cluster is in NFS server. > > So you are mounting an nfs file system shared by "localhost" ? > > Why not run PostgreSQL directly on the underlying file system, rather > than via nfs? > > > I guess that, In my environment, the mount options, system synchronously > > and without cache does not need. > > I would still expect to lose some written data if the system crashed or > lost power and nfs write caching was enabled. Because nfs's caching > doesn't guarantee write ordering, this data loss would probably horribly > corrupt your database. > > If you can get your NFS implementation to guarantee write ordering then > it's quite safe to cache. Good luck proving that it's doing the right > thing, though. "Safe" meaning it will not corrupt your database, but you could lose committed transactions after a server crash. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
