On 24 October 2013 15:04, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:39 AM, <maillists0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Am I wrong? If I'm wrong, is there still danger to the slave >> in this kind of setup? > > No, I think. Corruption due to fsync being off on the master will be replicated to the slave, or - if corruption is bad enough - replication will fail to replicate affected records entirely. Of course, turning fsync off is no guarantee for corruption - it's the other way around: having it on guarantees that you don't get corruption (provided that... etc). You could disable replication while fsync is off. I'd verify the data on the master (by creating a dump, for example) before re-enabling it again, though. -- If you can't see the forest for the trees, Cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
