| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>,PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Potential data loss of 2PC files |
| Date: | 2016-12-22 18:02:39 |
| Message-ID: | A6F96364-6E68-466C-8E31-206AAD7FD14C@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On December 22, 2016 6:44:22 PM GMT+01:00, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
>wrote:
>> It makes more sense of you mentally separate between filename(s) and
>file contents. Having to do filesystem metatata transactions for an
>fsync intended to sync contents would be annoying...
>
>I thought that's why there's fdatasync.
Not quite IIRC: that doesn't deal with file size increase. All this would be easier if hardlinks wouldn't exist IIUC. It's basically a question whether dentry, inode or contents need to be synced. Yes, it sucks.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-12-22 18:08:43 | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-12-22 17:59:50 | Re: An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention |