Re: Patch to improve reliability of postgresql on linux nfs
От | ktm@rice.edu |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Patch to improve reliability of postgresql on linux nfs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20110912125452.GA14035@staff-mud-56-27.rice.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Patch to improve reliability of postgresql on linux nfs (George Barnett <gbarnett@atlassian.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Patch to improve reliability of postgresql on linux nfs
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 04:46:53PM +1000, George Barnett wrote: > On 12/09/2011, at 3:59 PM, Florian Pflug wrote: > > > If you really meant to say "intr" there (and not "nointr") then that probably explains the partial writes. > > > > Still, I agree with Noah and Kevin that we ought to deal more gracefully with this, i.e. resubmit after a partial read()or write(). AFAICS there's nothing to be gained by not doing that, and the increase in code complexity should be negligible.If we do that, however, I believe we might as well handle EINTR correctly, even if SA_RESTART should prevent usfrom ever seeing that. > > > Hi Florian, > > You are indeed correct. Setting nointr also resolves my issue. I could swear I checked this, but obviously not. > > It does still concern me that pgsql did not deal with this as gracefully as other software. I hope the list will considera patch to resolve that. > > Thanks in advance, > > George Hi George, Many, many, many other software packages expect I/O usage to be the same on an NFS volume and a local disk volume, including Oracle. Coding every application, or more likely mis-coding, to handle this gives every application another chance to get it wrong. If the OS does this, when it gets it right, all of the apps get it right. I think you should be surprised when other software actually deals with broken I/O semantics gracefully rather than concerned when one of a pantheon of programs does not. My two cents. Regards, Ken
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: