| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions |
| Date: | 2016-02-05 17:11:42 |
| Message-ID: | 56B4D7CE.60806@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/04/2016 09:59 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> On 2016-02-02 09:56:40 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> And there is no actual risk of data loss
>>
>> Huh?
>
> More precise: what I mean here is that should an OS crash or a power
> failure happen, we would fall back to recovery at next restart, so we
> would not actually *lose* data.
Except that we actually can't perform the recovery properly because we
may not have the last WAL segment (or multiple segments), so we can't
replay the last batch of transactions. And we don't even notice that.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-02-05 17:31:10 | Re: Using quicksort for every external sort run |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2016-02-05 16:08:52 | Re: Sanity checking for ./configure options? |