On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 11:20 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > OK, I rewrote a bit the patch as attached. What do you think?
Committed and back-patched all the way back to 9.2. >> Right (I think). If we set and clear delayChkpt around this work, we >> don't need the immediate sync. > > My point is a bit different than what you mean I think: the > transaction creating an unlogged relfilenode would not need to even > set delayChkpt in the empty() routines because other transactions > would not refer to it until this transaction has committed. So I am > arguing about just removing the sync phase. That doesn't sound right; see the comment for heap_create_init_fork. Suppose the transaction creating the unlogged table commits, a checkpoint happens, and then the operating system crashes. Without the immediate sync, the operating system crash can cause the un-sync'd file to crash, and because of the checkpoint the WAL record that creates it isn't replayed either. So the file's just gone. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers