| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: fsync failure in durable_unlink ignored in xlog.c? |
| Date: | 2019-05-23 18:06:57 |
| Message-ID: | 18720.1558634817@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 2019-05-23 10:46:02 -0700, Mark Dilger wrote:
>> Is this code safe against fsync failures? If so, can I get an explanation
>> that I might put into a code comment patch?
> What's the danger you're thinking of here? The issue with ignoring fsync
> failures is that it could be the one signal about data corruption we get
> for a write()/fsync() that failed - i.e. that durability cannot be
> guaranteed. But we don't care about the file contents of those files.
Hmm ... if we don't care, why are we issuing an fsync at all?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2019-05-23 18:14:13 | Re: fsync failure in durable_unlink ignored in xlog.c? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-23 18:05:19 | Re: FullTransactionId changes are causing portability issues |