Re: switch UNLOGGED to LOGGED

> I think
> we need a detailed design document for how  this is all going to work.
> We need to not only handle the master properly but  also handle the
> slave properly.  Consider, for example, the case where  the slave
> begins to replay the transaction, reaches a restartpoint  after
> replaying some of the new pages, and then crashes.  If the  subsequent
> restart from the restartpoint blows away the main relation fork,  we're
> hosed.  I fear we're plunging into implementation details  without
> having a good overall design in mind first.


As I said in my first post, I'm basing the patch on the post:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg00315.php


So I assumed the design was ok (except for the "stray file around
on a standby" case, which has been discussed earlier on this thread).

If there are things to be discussed/analyzed (I guess the restart point
thing is one of those) we can do it... but I thought that the whole
design was somehow in place



Leonardo