| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Error with index on unlogged table |
| Date: | 2015-12-10 16:57:48 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYGiEBm8afXa6vNESL+T4LcCK-ugF-+SFvmpLMfoB607g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-12-10 17:19:12 | Re: Error with index on unlogged table |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-12-10 16:47:48 | Re: mdnblocks() sabotages error checking in _mdfd_getseg() |