| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: initdb -S and tablespaces |
| Date: | 2015-05-09 21:40:50 |
| Message-ID: | 13545.1431207650@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2015-05-08 22:08:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Of course, even the last one isn't totally bullet-proof. Suppose one
>> backend fails to absorb the new setting for some reason...
> I've a hard time worrying much about that one...
You should. At the very least, whatever recipe we write for changing
fsync safely has to include a clause like "wait for all postmaster
children to have absorbed the new fsync setting". The facts that (a) this
could be a long time and (b) there's no easy way to be entirely certain
about when it's done don't make it something you should ignore.
I wonder whether we should change fsync to be PGC_POSTMASTER and then
document the safe procedure as requiring a postmaster restart.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-05-09 22:42:25 | Re: Auditing extension for PostgreSQL (Take 2) |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-05-09 20:56:57 | Re: initdb -S and tablespaces |