Re: Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers

On 7/6/10 4:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> To recap the previous discussion on this thread, we ended up changing
> the behavior of 9.0 so that it only sends WAL which has been written
> to the OS *and flushed*, because sending unflushed WAL to the standby
> is unsafe.  The standby can get ahead of the master while still
> believing that the databases are in sync, due to the fact that after
> an SR reconnect we rewind to the start of the current WAL segment.
> This results in a silently corrupt standby database.

What was the final decision on behavior if fsync=off?

-- 
                                  -- Josh Berkus
                                     PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                                     http://www.pgexperts.com