Re: BUG #10675: alter database set tablespace and unlogged table
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #10675: alter database set tablespace and unlogged table |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHGQGwFGsqMYDz1z-RarMkOSZtBKXGLko5pNSKRDNE4gdL-XpQ@mail.gmail.com 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 Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Pavan Deolasee >> <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Also, there had been discussions about altering unlogged tables to normal >>> tables and we may also want to improve upon the current mechanism of >>> truncating unlogged relations at the end of recovery even if the table was >>> fully synced to the disk. It looks simpler to just flush everything instead >>> of devising a new flag for checkpoint. >>> >>> Anyone else has an opinion on this? >>> >> >> Since I did not hear anything on this, I created a patch that adds a new >> flag to tell checkpointer to flush all pages to the disk. Tom (and even I) >> have reservations about the approach, but I would nevertheless leave it to >> the committer to decide. IMV we must fix this bug one way or the other. >> Otherwise users face risk of failing to do clean shutdown. >> > > As Robert as voted in favor of keeping existing checkpoint behavior intact, > should we consider this patch before the minor releases are out next week? What's the status of this? ISTM that the patch has not been applied yet. Right? Regards, -- Fujii Masao
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: