On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the first patch (relpersistence-v4.patch) is ready to commit,
So I've now committed it. > and the third patch to allow synchronous commits to become > asynchronous when it doesn't matter (relax-sync-commit-v1.patch) Jeff Janes reviewed this, which was good, but he missed a key bit on which I've now set him straight. So an updated review of this would be much appreciated. > doesn't seem to be changing much either, although I would appreciate > it if someone with more expertise than I have with our write-ahead > logging system would give it a quick once-over. > > The main patch (unlogged-tables-v4.patch) needs more thought. Right > now, unlogged buffers are checkpointed, which I want to get rid of. > Andres Freund suggested we could get by with this and still survive a > clean shutdown if we fsync() every unlogged relation in the cluster > before shutting down, but I'm concerned about the case where one of > the fsync() calls fails. That's presumably already a problem with > checkpoints generally, and I haven't traced through the logic to see > exactly what happens, but I guess this would need similar treatment. > In a non-shutdown checkpoint, the checkpoint can just fail. In a > shutdown checkpoint, we presumably can't just refuse to exit, but it > shouldn't look like a clean shutdown... Any input on this point? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
