Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Robert is probably going to object that he wanted to prevent any
>> fsyncing for unlogged tables, but the discussion over in pgsql-general
>> is crystal clear that people do NOT want to lose unlogged data over
>> a clean shutdown and restart. If all it takes to do that is to refrain
>> from lobotomizing the checkpoint logic for unlogged tables, I say we
>> should refrain.
> I think that's absolutely a bad idea.
The customer is always right, and I think we are hearing loud and clear
what the customers want. Please let's not go out of our way to create
a feature that isn't what they want.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
