| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Asim R P <apraveen(at)pivotal(dot)io>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux) |
| Date: | 2018-10-19 05:41:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAMsr+YHXKMjbek6FaYyViW7A8tZ2qfROeO1OYt_GBNLE6y_mbg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 at 07:27, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> 2. I am +1 on back-patching Craig's PANIC-on-failure logic. Doing
> nothing is not an option I like. I have some feedback and changes to
> propose though; see attached.
>
Thanks very much for the work on reviewing and revising this.
> I don't see why sync_file_range(SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE) should get a
> pass here. Inspection of some version of the kernel might tell us it
> can't advance the error counter and report failure, but what do we
> gain by relying on that? Changed.
>
I was sure it made sense at the time, but I can't explain that decision
now, and it looks like we should treat it as a failure.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-19 05:45:03 | Re: relhassubclass and partitioned indexes |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-10-19 04:58:17 | relhassubclass and partitioned indexes |