| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fsync-pgdata-on-recovery tries to write to more files than previously |
| Date: | 2015-05-26 14:41:12 |
| Message-ID: | 14355.1432651272@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Anything we do short of making all errors in this area non-fatal is
> going to leave behind startup-failure cases that exist today, and we
> have no evidence at this time that such startup failures would be
> justified by any actual data loss risk.
Yeah. Perhaps I missed it, but was the original patch motivated by
actual failures that had been seen in the field, or was it just a
hypothetical concern? Certainly, any actual failures of that sort
are few and far between compared to the number of problems we now
realize the patch introduced.
Also, we need to discuss how hard walkdir() needs to try to avoid
throwing errors of its own.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-05-26 14:44:06 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Row-Level Security Policies (RLS) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-05-26 14:34:22 | Re: Why does txid_current() assign new transaction-id? |