On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Michael Paquier <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Andrew Dunstan > <[email protected]> wrote: >> This is really a pretty small patch all things considered, and pretty >> low-risk (although I haven;t been threough the code in fine detail yet). >> In the end I'm persuaded by Andres' point that there's actually no >> practical alternative way to make sure the data is actually synced to disk. >> >> If nobody else wants to pick it up I will, unless there is a strong >> objection. > > Thanks!
Thanks Andrew, I can see that this has been committed as 96a7128b. I also saw that: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/[email protected] I'll send a patch in a bit for the regression tests. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
