bufmgr and smgr don't talk to each other, apparently
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | bufmgr and smgr don't talk to each other, apparently |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1853.964822211@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
RE: bufmgr and smgr don't talk to each other, apparently
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I have just noticed something that's been broken for a good long while (at least since 6.3): bufmgr.c expects that I/O errors will result in an SM_FAIL return code from the smgr.c routines, but smgr.c does no such thing: it does elog(ERROR) if it sees a failure. All of the "error handling" paths in bufmgr.c are dead code and have been since at least 6.3. It seems to me that we should either reduce smgr.c's elog()s to NOTICEs, or rip out all of the dead code in bufmgr.c. I'm inclined to the latter, since the former seems likely to create new bugs. I'm also thinking that AbortBufferIO is *way* overstepping its authority by forcing a postmaster restart if it notices a double write failure. The dirty buffer is a problem, no doubt, but this solution looks like urban renewal via A-bomb. I'd rather just keep failing anytime some transaction tries to write the buffer --- better that than taking out all active transactions whether they'd ever touched that buffer or not. If the write failure really is permanent, the dbadmin would eventually have to intervene via a manual restart, but a manual restart at the time of the dbadmin's choosing seems better than forcing a failure under load. Comments? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: