On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut
>>> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> > On 5/13/16 2:39 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> What do others think about that? I could implement that on top of 0002
>>> with some extra options. But to be honest that looks to be just some
>>> extra sugar for what is basically a bug fix... And I am feeling that
>>> providing such a switch to users would be a way for one to shoot
>>> himself badly, particularly for pg_receivexlog where a crash can cause
>>> segments to go missing.
>> Well, why do we provide a --nosync option for initdb? Wouldn't the argument
>> basically be the same?
> Yes, the good-for-testing-but-not-production argument.
>> I agree it kind of feels like overkill, but it would be consistent overkill?
>> :)
> Oh, well. I have just implemented it on top of the two other patches
> for pg_basebackup. For pg_receivexlog, I am wondering if it makes
> sense to have it. That would be trivial to implement it, and I think
> that we had better make the combination of --synchronous and --nosync
> just leave with an error. Thoughts about having that for
> pg_receivexlog?

With patches that's actually better..

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

Reply via email to