Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS

From: Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Anthony Iliopoulos <ailiop(at)altatus(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS
Date: 2018-04-09 18:29:42
Message-ID: AC30E30E-6294-4E72-B5B6-C6301AA3AA9E@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> On Apr 9, 2018, at 10:26 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:

> We have plenty of YEARS of people not noticing this issue

I disagree. I have noticed this problem, but blamed it on other things.
For over five years now, I have had to tell customers not to use thin
provisioning, and I have had to add code to postgres to refuse to perform
inserts or updates if the disk volume is more than 80% full. I have lost
count of the number of customers who are running an older version of the
product (because they refuse to upgrade) and come back with complaints that
they ran out of disk and now their database is corrupt. All this time, I
have been blaming this on virtualization and thin provisioning.

mark

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2018-04-09 18:44:18 Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-04-09 18:28:47 Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning