| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER DATABASE SET TABLESPACE vs crash safety |
| Date: | 2008-11-07 15:59:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20081107155949.GC5507@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> That is, that's true as long as the filesystem copy in fact pushed
> everything to disk. copydir() does an fsync() on each file it copies,
> so I think we have done as much as we can to protect the data being
> copied, but I wonder if anyone feels it's too dangerous?
Do we need to fsync the directory itself? My fsync(2) manpage says
Calling fsync() does not necessarily ensure that the entry in the directory
containing the file has also reached disk. For that an explicit fsync() on a
file descriptor for the directory is also needed.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martin Pihlak | 2008-11-07 16:03:40 | Re: auto_explain contrib moudle |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-11-07 15:53:59 | ALTER DATABASE SET TABLESPACE vs crash safety |