On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
wrote:
>
> Won't that significantly regress manually issued CHECKPOINT;s?
>
>
May be if there are large unlogged table(s) which are frequently updated
between manual checkpoints. I don't know how unlogged tables are being
currently used to make that call. We could add another flag and use that
while taking system checkpoints. But I wonder if not flushing dirty buffers
of unlogged tables at a checkpoint is a bad idea anyways. User might expect
that the unlogged tables to sustain server crash or unclean shutdown if
there had been no writes after successful manual checkpoint(s). I
understand we provide no such guarantee and its explicitly stated in the
documentation, but user may have that expectation after a successful
checkpoint or at the least would expect a way to flush unlogged tables to
disk. Currently I see no way of doing that.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
http://www.linkedin.com/in/pavandeolasee