On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Pavan Deolasee
<pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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?
What's the status of this? ISTM that the patch has not been applied yet. Right?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao