Re: fsync reliability

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> The traditional standard is that the filesystem is supposed to take
>>> care of its own metadata, and even Linux filesystems have pretty much
>>> figured that out.  I don't really see a need for us to be nursemaiding
>>> the filesystem.  At most there's a documentation issue here, ie, we
>>> ought to be more explicit about which filesystems and which mount
>>> options we recommend.
>>
>> I think it would be illuminating to shine upon this conversation the
>> light of some actual facts, as to whether or not this can be
>> demonstrated to be broken on systems people actually use, and to what
>> extent it can be mitigated by the sorts of configuration choices you
>> mention.  Neither Simon's comments nor yours give me any clear feeling
>> as to how likely this is to cause problems for real users, nor how
>> easily those problems can be mitigated.
>
> If you have some actual facts yourself, add them. Or listen for people that do.

Since I don't have any actual facts, listening for people who do is
precisely what I am doing. Since the proposed change was your
suggestion, perhaps you would like to provide some.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company