| From: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, marcin mank <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: unlogged tables |
| Date: | 2010-11-17 19:22:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20101117192204.GX14016@aart.is.rice.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:16:06PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> Robert is probably going to object that he wanted to prevent any
> >> fsyncing for unlogged tables, but the discussion over in pgsql-general
> >> is crystal clear that people do NOT want to lose unlogged data over
> >> a clean shutdown and restart. If all it takes to do that is to refrain
> >> from lobotomizing the checkpoint logic for unlogged tables, I say we
> >> should refrain.
>
> > I think that's absolutely a bad idea.
>
> The customer is always right, and I think we are hearing loud and clear
> what the customers want. Please let's not go out of our way to create
> a feature that isn't what they want.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
I would be fine with only having a safe shutdown with unlogged tables
and skip the checkpoint I/O all other times.
Cheers,
Ken
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-11-17 19:31:26 | Re: unlogged tables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-17 19:21:44 | Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #5650: Postgres service showing as stopped when in fact it is running |