| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checkpoint not retrying failed fsync? |
| Date: | 2018-04-06 01:11:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAEepm=2KLkOqJ1fZe8WyhzyT=cVkzWxecYcewk+b0h=NHMLOZA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> After some testing, here is a better one for review.
One problem I thought of about 8 milliseconds after clicking send is
that bms_union() may fail to allocate memory and then you're hosed.
Here is a new version that uses bms_join() instead, because that can't
fail.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Make-sure-we-don-t-forget-about-fsync-requests-af-v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2018-04-06 01:27:05 | Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-04-06 00:56:54 | Re: Checkpoint not retrying failed fsync? |