Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 12:07:48 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: CHECKPOINT unlogged data
Message-ID: <aDnl5N1u7UBYVaSt@nathan>
References: <aDnaKTEf-0dLiEfz@msg.df7cb.de>
 <vp4cewuyo2cw4fk5sxjaovllhe3dscixxo2utu3cgqhzydrqec@wc2nhgx4khpk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <vp4cewuyo2cw4fk5sxjaovllhe3dscixxo2utu3cgqhzydrqec@wc2nhgx4khpk>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aDnl5N1u7UBYVaSt%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 12:39:02PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-05-30 18:17:45 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
>> A customer reported to use CHECKPOINT before shutdowns to make the
>> shutdowns themselves faster and asked if it was possible to make
>> CHECKPOINT optionally also write out unlogged table data for that
>> purpose. I think the idea makes sense, so there's the patch.
> 
> I've seen the need for this quite a few times, fwiw. So +1 to the idea.

This patch also adds an IMMEDIATE option, which I proposed some time ago
[0].  I ended up withdrawing it due to general skepticism about its
usefulness.  FWIW I have no concerns about adding a few retail options to
CHECKPOINT, but others might balk at options without solid use-cases.  The
unlogged table one seems reasonable enough.

[0] https://postgr.es/m/17A03557-CF5C-4D4B-B719-A1D98DD75E75%40amazon.com

-- 
nathan