Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I know of real customers who would have suffered real data loss >>> had this code been present in the server version they were using.
> If that is the concern, then its a one line fix to add the missing clog flush. To where, and what performance impact will that have? > The other suggestions I've skim read seem fairly invasive at this > stage of the release. The issue here is that we committed a not-very-well-thought-out fix to the original problem. I think a reasonable argument could be made for simply reverting commit 18fb9d8d21a28caddb72c7ffbdd7b96d52ff9724 and postponing any of these other ideas to 9.3. The useless-checkpoints problem has been there since 9.0 and can surely wait another release cycle to get fixed. But I concur with Robert that changing the system behavior so that checkpointing of committed changes might be delayed indefinitely is a high-risk choice. 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