| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump, pg_dumpall and data durability |
| Date: | 2016-11-15 16:27:14 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY_Nk1jL0r_LPukFQS7WdJTe859F68w7oH3j+R60r=e3A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2016-11-08 18:18:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think this might be better addressed by adding something to backup.sgml
>> pointing out that you'd better fsync or sync your backups before assuming
>> that they can't be lost.
>
> How does a normal user do that? I don't think there's a cross-platform
> advice we can give, and even on *nix the answer basically is 'sync;
> sync;' which is a pretty big hammer, and might be completely
> unacceptable on a busy server.
Yeah, that's a pretty fair point. I see the point of this patch
pretty clearly but somehow it makes me nervous anyway. I'm not sure
there's any better alternative to what's being proposed, though.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-11-15 16:29:52 | Re: Snapshot too old logging |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-11-15 16:25:01 | Re: proposal: psql \setfileref |