On 3 Sep. 2016 9:22 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.
We need it for tap tests. More and more will use pg_basebackup and it'll start hurting test speeds badly.