Re: BUG #10675: alter database set tablespace and unlogged table
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #10675: alter database set tablespace and unlogged table |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20140702120610.GM21169@awork2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #10675: alter database set tablespace and unlogged table (Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #10675: alter database set tablespace and unlogged table
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On 2014-06-20 23:34:36 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > > On 2014-06-18 09:45:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > > > On 2014-06-18 16:15:47 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > > > I'm with Pavan on this one: it's *not* a good thing that manually issued > > > checkpoints skip unlogged tables. That's surprising, possibly dangerous, > > > and no case whatsoever has been made that anyone sees it as an important > > > performance benefit. > > > > I don't understand what dangers it has? Any unclean shutdown resets all > > unlogged tables. > > > > > Looks like there is no agreement on this. I agree with Andreas that given > the current mechanism of truncating unlogged relations at the end of redo > recovery, there is no danger in not flushing the dirty buffers belonging to > unlogged relation at a normal checkpoint. Having said that, I find it > confusing that we don't do that, for one reason that Tom explained and also > because there is practically just no way to flush those dirty buffers to > disk if the user wants so. Which reason, except the faster shutdown, for a user to want that? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: