From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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: | 2016-02-06 12:16:26 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQNKstoig6ABBEBQfw676XAJmFnjA-+KU8EgS99xtsd4A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:11 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
Still the data is here... But well. I won't insist. Tomas, could you
have a look at the latest patch I wrote? It would be good to get fresh
eyes on it. We could work on a version for ~9.4 once we have a clean
approach for master/9.5.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-02-06 13:03:15 | Re: Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-02-06 09:03:14 | Re: Explanation for bug #13908: hash joins are badly broken |