Hi, thanks :) > > If -o async means "all I/O is asyncronous except stuff explicitly > > fsync()ed" you're fine. Otherwise... > > That's the way it works. Async is the default setting for most > filesystems, but fsync() is always honored, at last as far as > non-lying hardware will allow. :) That sounds good :) ext's journalling should take care of the rest I guess - does that sound ok? I have read in various places I think that pgSQL doesn't need any directory-level operations in keeping WAL up to date so provided the ext3 partition remains mountable then the database should be fine, > > The usual advice is to stick the WAL on a properly synced partition and > > stick the rest somewhere else. Note, I have no experience with this, > > it's just what I've heard. > > This might not be optimal, as having every write synchronous actually > results in more synced writes than are strictly necessary. Actually I thought that *all* the database had to have fsync() work correctly; not for integrity on failed transactions, but to maintain integrity during checkpointing as well. But I could well be wrong! thanks, Shane
