Re: Two fsync related performance issues?

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Paul Guo <pguo(at)pivotal(dot)io>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Two fsync related performance issues?
Date: 2020-12-02 07:41:38
Message-ID: X8dFMhh+McXiAwYA@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 07:39:30PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2020, 13:06 Michael Paquier, <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> Yeah, it is safer to assume that it is the responsability of the
>> backup tool to ensure that because it could be possible that a host is
>> unplugged just after taking a backup, and having Postgres do this work
>> at the beginning of archive recovery would not help in most cases.
>
> Let's document that assumption in the docs for pg_basebackup and the file
> system copy based replica creation docs. With a reference to initdb's
> datadir sync option.

Do you have any suggestion about that, in the shape of a patch perhaps?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2020-12-02 07:42:16 Re: Commitfest 2020-11 is closed
Previous Message Sergei Kornilov 2020-12-02 07:27:34 Re: Allow some recovery parameters to be changed with reload