On Sunday 14 February 2010 18:11:39 Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> > So I think we have a bigger problem than just copydir.c. It seems to
> > me we should be fsyncing the table space data directories on every
> > checkpoint.
> Is there any evidence that anyone anywhere has ever lost data because
> of a lack of directory fsyncs? I sure don't recall any bug reports
> that seem to match that theory.
I have actually seen the issue during create database at least. In a
virtualized hw though...
~1GB template database, lots and lots of small tables, the crash occured maybe
a minute after CREATE DB, filesystem was xfs, kernel 2.6.30.y.
> It seems to me that we're talking about a huge hit in both code
> complexity and performance to deal with a problem that doesn't actually
> occur in the field; and which furthermore is trivially solved on any
> modern filesystem by choosing the right filesystem options. Why don't
> we just document those options, instead?
Which options would that be? I am not aware that there any for any of the
recent linux filesystems.
Well, except "sync" that is, but that sure would be more of a performance hit
than fsyncing the directory...
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-14 17:37:15|
|Subject: Re: Re: Faster CREATE DATABASE by delaying fsync (was 8.4.1 ubuntu karmic slow createdb) |
|Previous:||From: Arjen van der Meijden||Date: 2010-02-14 17:12:00|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL on SMP Architectures|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2010-02-14 17:33:13|
|Subject: Re: psycopg2 license changed|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-14 17:24:59|
|Subject: Re: knngist patch support |