On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I feel quite uncomfortable that it solves the problem from a kind
>>> of nature of unlogged object by arbitrary flagging which is not
>>> fully corresponds to the nature. If we can deduce the necessity
>>> of fsync from some nature, it would be preferable.
>> INIT_FORKNUM is not something only related to unlogged relations,
>> indexes use them as well.
> Eh, what?
> Indexes use them if they are indexes on unlogged tables, but they'd
> better not use them in any other situation.  Otherwise bad things are
> going to happen.

Yes, this was badly formulated, and caused by my lack of knowledge of
unlogged tables, I think I got it now :) Why don't we actually put
some asserts in those code paths to say that INIT_FORKNUM specific
code can just be used for unlogged relations? Just a thought...

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to