On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut >> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > On 5/13/16 2:39 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> What do others think about that? I could implement that on top of 0002 >> with some extra options. But to be honest that looks to be just some >> extra sugar for what is basically a bug fix... And I am feeling that >> providing such a switch to users would be a way for one to shoot >> himself badly, particularly for pg_receivexlog where a crash can cause >> segments to go missing. >> > > Well, why do we provide a --nosync option for initdb? Wouldn't the argument > basically be the same?
Yes, the good-for-testing-but-not-production argument. > I agree it kind of feels like overkill, but it would be consistent overkill? > :) Oh, well. I have just implemented it on top of the two other patches for pg_basebackup. For pg_receivexlog, I am wondering if it makes sense to have it. That would be trivial to implement it, and I think that we had better make the combination of --synchronous and --nosync just leave with an error. Thoughts about having that for pg_receivexlog? -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
