|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|Cc:||Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: subscriptionCheck failures on nightjar|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> I was kinda pondering just open coding it. I am not yet convinced that
> my idea of just using an open FD isn't the least bad approach for the
> issue at hand. What precisely is the NFS issue you're concerned about?
I'm not sure that fsync-on-FD after the rename will work, considering that
the issue here is that somebody might've unlinked the file altogether
before we get to doing the fsync. I don't have a hard time believing that
that might result in a failure report on NFS or similar. Yeah, it's
hypothetical, but the argument that we need a repeat fsync at all seems
> Right now fsync_fname_ext isn't exposed outside fd.c...
Mmm. That makes it easier to consider changing its API.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Alvaro Herrera||2019-02-13 19:18:29||Re: Using POPCNT and other advanced bit manipulation instructions|
|Previous Message||Mark Dilger||2019-02-13 18:51:32||Re: more unconstify use|