On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Looks like there is no agreement on this. I agree with Andreas that given
>> the current mechanism of truncating unlogged relations at the end of redo
>> recovery, there is no danger in not flushing the dirty buffers belonging to
>> unlogged relation at a normal checkpoint. Having said that, I find it
>> confusing that we don't do that, for one reason that Tom explained and also
>> because there is practically just no way to flush those dirty buffers to
>> disk if the user wants so.
>>
>> Also, there had been discussions about altering unlogged tables to normal
>> tables and we may also want to improve upon the current mechanism of
>> truncating unlogged relations at the end of recovery even if the table was
>> fully synced to the disk. It looks simpler to just flush everything instead
>> of devising a new flag for checkpoint.
>>
>> Anyone else has an opinion on this?
>>
>>
> Since I did not hear anything on this, I created a patch that adds a new
> flag to tell checkpointer to flush all pages to the disk. Tom (and even I)
> have reservations about the approach, but I would nevertheless leave it to
> the committer to decide. IMV we must fix this bug one way or the other.
> Otherwise users face risk of failing to do clean shutdown.
>
>
As Robert as voted in favor of keeping existing checkpoint behavior intact,
should we consider this patch before the minor releases are out next week?
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
http://www.linkedin.com/in/pavandeolasee