| From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: read() returns ERANGE in Mac OS X |
| Date: | 2012-05-21 22:08:51 |
| Message-ID: | 1CDD0EA0-5534-4801-8C88-96B46D6A96C2@phlo.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On May21, 2012, at 20:20 , Tom Lane wrote:
> I wonder whether we should dedicate a buffer status bit to show that
> the buffer has been zeroed by zero_damaged_pages and thus doesn't
> reflect what's on disk. Then we could teach autovacuum to not overwrite
> such pages.
+1. The idea of us overwriting valid pages because of transient errors sure
is scary.
> On the other hand, such an approach would mean that you
> couldn't use vacuum to forcibly clean up broken pages, so while this
> might be "safer" it's not clear it makes things more useful.
If we're concerned about this, we could always add a separate GUC
fix_damaged_pages which controls whether zero'd pages are written back
or not.
best regards,
Florian Pflug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2012-05-21 22:09:57 | Re: Bug in new buffering GiST build code |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-05-21 21:29:32 | Re: Why is indexonlyscan so darned slow? |