Bonjour Michaël,
> Yes, that would be nice, for now I have focused. For pg_resetwal yes
> we could do it easily. Would you like to send a patch?
I probably can do that before next Monday. I'll prioritize reviewing the
latest instance of this patch, though.
>> This seem contradictory to me: you want to disable checksum, and they are
>> already disabled, so nothing is needed. How does that qualifies as a
>> "failed" operation?
>
> If the operation is automated, then a proper reaction can be done if
> multiple attempts are done. Of course, I am fine to tune things one
> way or the other depending on the opinion of the crowd here. From the
> opinions gathered, I can see that (Michael * 2) prefer failing with
> exit(1), while (Fabien * 1) would like to just do exit(0).
Yep, that sums it up:-).
>> Indeed. I do not immediately see the use case where no syncing would be a
>> good idea. I can see why it would be a bad idea. So I'm not sure of the
>> concept.
>
> To leverage the buildfarm effort I think this one is worth it. Or we
> finish to fsync the data folder a couple of times, which would make
> the small-ish buildfarm machines suffer more than they need.
Ok for the particular use-case, provided that the documentation is very
clear about the risks, which is the case, so fine with me wrt to the
feature.
--
Fabien.
