On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:16:06PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
