On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I feel quite uncomfortable that it solves the problem from a kind >>> of nature of unlogged object by arbitrary flagging which is not >>> fully corresponds to the nature. If we can deduce the necessity >>> of fsync from some nature, it would be preferable. >> >> INIT_FORKNUM is not something only related to unlogged relations, >> indexes use them as well. > > Eh, what? > > Indexes use them if they are indexes on unlogged tables, but they'd > better not use them in any other situation. Otherwise bad things are > going to happen.
Yes, this was badly formulated, and caused by my lack of knowledge of unlogged tables, I think I got it now :) Why don't we actually put some asserts in those code paths to say that INIT_FORKNUM specific code can just be used for unlogged relations? Just a thought... -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
