Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Shawn Debnath <sdn(at)amazon(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue
Date: 2019-01-22 18:17:02
Message-ID: 20190122181702.jueacsyffjwla3bb@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,,

On 2019-01-22 08:27:48 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> With the help of VMware's Dirk Hohndel (VMware's Chief Open Source
> Officer, a VP position near the top of the organization, and a
> personal friend of Linus), I have been fortunate enough to make
> contact directly with Linus Torvalds to discuss this issue. In emails
> to me he has told me that this patch is no longer provisional:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=fff75eb2a08c2ac96404a2d79685668f3cf5a7a3

Unfortunately, unless something has changed recently, that patch is
*not* sufficient to really solve the issue - we don't guarantee that
there's always an fd preventing the necessary information from being
evicted from memory:

Note that we might still lose the error if the inode gets evicted from
the cache before anything can reopen it, but that was the case before
errseq_t was merged. At LSF/MM we had some discussion about keeping
inodes with unreported writeback errors around in the cache for longer
(possibly indefinitely), but that's really a separate problem"

And that's entirely possibly in postgres. The commit was dicussed on
list too, btw...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-01-22 18:35:57 Re: COPY FROM WHEN condition
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2019-01-22 18:04:25 Re: proposal - plpgsql unique statement id