Re: fsync-pgdata-on-recovery tries to write to more files than previously

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: fsync-pgdata-on-recovery tries to write to more files than previously
Date: 2015-05-25 17:52:18
Message-ID: 20150525175218.GQ26667@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
> On 2015-05-25 13:38:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > > On May 24, 2015 7:52:53 AM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > > If we'd merge it with initdb's list I think I'd not be that bad. I'm thinking of some header declaring it, roughly like the rmgr list.
> >
> > pg_log/ is a counterexample to that idea too; initdb doesn't know about it
> > (and shouldn't).
>
> The idea would be to *only* directories that initdb knows about. Since
> that's where the valuables are. So I don't see how pg_log would be a
> counterexample.

Indeed, that wouldn't be included in the list of things to fsync and it
isn't listed in initdb, so that works.

I've not followed this thread all that closely, but I do tend to agree
with the idea of "only try to mess with files that are *clearly* ours to
mess with."

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-05-25 18:02:28 Re: fsync-pgdata-on-recovery tries to write to more files than previously
Previous Message Andres Freund 2015-05-25 17:41:48 Re: fsync-pgdata-on-recovery tries to write to more files than previously