On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut
>> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> > On 5/13/16 2:39 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> What do others think about that? I could implement that on top of 0002
>> with some extra options. But to be honest that looks to be just some
>> extra sugar for what is basically a bug fix... And I am feeling that
>> providing such a switch to users would be a way for one to shoot
>> himself badly, particularly for pg_receivexlog where a crash can cause
>> segments to go missing.
>>
>
> Well, why do we provide a --nosync option for initdb? Wouldn't the argument
> basically be the same?
Yes, the good-for-testing-but-not-production argument.
> I agree it kind of feels like overkill, but it would be consistent overkill?
> :)
Oh, well. I have just implemented it on top of the two other patches
for pg_basebackup. For pg_receivexlog, I am wondering if it makes
sense to have it. That would be trivial to implement it, and I think
that we had better make the combination of --synchronous and --nosync
just leave with an error. Thoughts about having that for
pg_receivexlog?
--
Michael