On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:16:06PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@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
>
I would be fine with only having a safe shutdown with unlogged tables
and skip the checkpoint I/O all other times.
Cheers,
Ken