From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, "maxim(dot)boguk" <maxim(dot)boguk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #10675: alter database set tablespace and unlogged table |
Date: | 2014-06-18 13:45:46 |
Message-ID: | 11621.1403099146@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-06-18 16:15:47 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>> But I wonder if not flushing dirty buffers
>> of unlogged tables at a checkpoint is a bad idea anyways. User might expect
>> that the unlogged tables to sustain server crash or unclean shutdown if
>> there had been no writes after successful manual checkpoint(s).
> They'll get reset at unlcean startup anyway. Independent of having been
> touched or not.
I'm with Pavan on this one: it's *not* a good thing that manually issued
checkpoints skip unlogged tables. That's surprising, possibly dangerous,
and no case whatsoever has been made that anyone sees it as an important
performance benefit.
I trust that a shutdown checkpoint, at least, would write such pages?
If so, I'd expect that a manual checkpoint would do it too. Maybe
I'm checkpointing because I want to be sure that the shutdown will be
quick so I can do a minor release update with minimal downtime.
I think we should just change this. -1 for new flags and more
complication.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-18 14:19:49 | Re: BUG #10675: alter database set tablespace and unlogged table |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-18 11:02:40 | Re: BUG #10675: alter database set tablespace and unlogged table |