On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
With patches that's actually better.. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
