
> >By the way, may I ask more question regarding Oracle? You mentioned
> >the magic of no-fsync in Oracle is actually a bug. Ok, I understand. I
> >also heard that Oracle does some kind of redo-log bufferings. Does
> >this mean certain committed data might be lost if the system crashed
> >before the buffered data is written into the disk?
> 
Yes, you might loose a transaction that has been reported committed to the
client.
But, it guarantees that every transaction is eighter committed, or rolled
back as a 
whole. Thus leaving the database in a consistent state. We have a lot of
applications
where this is acceptable, and others where this is not. It is the ability to
choose 
(in Informix buffered versus unbuffered logging) that makes us happy. 

Andreas

Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:11:49 +0200 
ZEUGSWETTER Andreas IZ5 <Andreas.Zeugswetter@telecom.at>
Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6 