Re: pgsql-server/src backend/storage/buffer/bufmgr ...
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql-server/src backend/storage/buffer/bufmgr ... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 14205.1075146232@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql-server/src backend/storage/buffer/bufmgr ... (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql-server/src backend/storage/buffer/bufmgr ...
Re: pgsql-server/src backend/storage/buffer/bufmgr ... |
Список | pgsql-committers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> As I've said before, I think we need to find a way to stop using sync() >> altogether --- we have to move to fsync or O_SYNC and variants. sync >> has simply got the wrong API. > If sync failes (kernel to disk write failes) we have a hardware failure, > and we don't pretend to recover from that, Not necessarily --- it could be out-of-disk-space, on at least some filesystems. More to the point, the important thing is not to commit a checkpoint record to WAL indicating that everything is good, when everything is not good. As long as we don't checkpoint we have some hope of recovering automatically via WAL replay. > One idea I floated around was to > open/write/fsync/close a temporary file after sync in the hope that it > would happen after the sync completes because the fsync would be at the > end of the disk flush queue. "In the hope"? We already have a guess-and-hope approach to this, and it will never be any better as long as we use sync(), because sync() is fundamentally the wrong operation. It doesn't tell you when the I/O is done, and it doesn't tell you whether the I/O was done successfully, and there is no possibility of working around that fundamental lack of information except to stop using it. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: