Re: [HACKERS] Potential data loss of 2PC files
От | Teodor Sigaev |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Potential data loss of 2PC files |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1ba0a71a-0821-5003-8b8c-5bd7c8abc3e7@sigaev.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Potential data loss of 2PC files (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Potential data loss of 2PC files
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
>>> If that can happen, don't we have the same problem in many other places? >>> Like, all the SLRUs? They don't fsync the directory either. >> Right, pg_commit_ts and pg_clog enter in this category. > > Implemented as attached. > >>> Is unlink() guaranteed to be durable, without fsyncing the directory? If >>> not, then we need to fsync() the directory even if there are no files in it >>> at the moment, because some might've been removed earlier in the checkpoint >>> cycle. What is protection if pg crashes after unlimk() but before fsync()? Right, it's rather small window for such scenario, but isn't better to have another protection? Like WAL-logging of WAL segment removing... -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: