On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Andrew Dunstan > <andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> 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/75e1b6ff-c3d5-9a26-e38b-3cb22a099...@2ndquadrant.com I'll send a patch in a bit for the regression tests. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
