Re: Loaded footgun open_datasync on Windows

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:32 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 08:43:18AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>
> > If it turns out not to break anything, would you consider backpatching?
> > On the one hand it fixes a bug, on the other hand it affects all
> > frontend executables...
>
> Yeah, for this reason I would not do a backpatch. I have a very hard
> time to believe that any frontend tools on Windows developed by anybody
> rely on files to be opened only by a single process, still if they do
> they would be surprised to see a change of behavior after a minor
> update in case they rely on the concurrency limitations.
>

Reviving an old thread here.

Could it be back-patched in some pg_test_fsync specific variant? I
don't think we should just ignore the fact that pg_test_fsync on Windows is
unfit for its intended purpose on 4 still-supported versions.

> > I wonder why nobody noticed the problem in pg_test_fsync earlier.
> > Is it that people running Windows care less if their storage is
> > reliable?
>
> likely so.
>

I have noticed this before, but since it wasn't a production machine I just
shrugged it off as being a hazard of using consumer-grade stuff; it didn't
seem to be worth investigating further.

Cheers,

Jeff