Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 11/17/2010 02:22 PM, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
>> I would be fine with only having a safe shutdown with unlogged tables
>> and skip the checkpoint I/O all other times.
> Yeah, I was just thinking something like that would be good, and should
> overcome Robert's objection to the whole idea.
I don't think you can fsync only in the shutdown checkpoint and assume
your data is safe, if you didn't fsync a write a few moments earlier.
Now, a few minutes ago Robert was muttering about supporting more than
one kind of degraded-reliability table. I could see inventing
"unlogged" tables, which means exactly that (no xlog support, but we
still checkpoint/fsync as usual), and "unsynced" tables which
also/instead suppress fsync activity. The former type could be assumed
to survive a clean shutdown/restart, while the latter wouldn't. This
would let people pick their poison.
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
