Re: PITR Dead horse?

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PITR Dead horse?
Date: 2004-05-14 05:17:30
Message-ID: 87wu3fpoyd.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


"scott.marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:

> but I'm not sure you can test that without power off tests...

Well the approach that's been taken manually on the list is to look at the
timing results and conclude they're just physically impossible.

Doing this automatically could be interesting. If the tool were given a
partition to act on directly it would be able to intentionally write to blocks
in reverse order doing an fsync between each block and testing whether the
bandwidth is low enough to conclude a full rotation between each write had
been completed.

Doing the same on the filesystem would be less reliable but might also be an
interesting test since the OS might make fsync lie directly, or might have
some additional intelligence in the filesystem that forces the drive to sync
to the platters before fsync returns.

--
greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2004-05-14 07:22:50 Re: [HACKERS] pg_autovacuum Win32 service patch #2
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-05-14 02:11:35 Re: Subtle pg_dump problem...