Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 375f0e89-90fe-173d-fdd1-eb37d60a42ca@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/09/2018 04:00 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 9 April 2018 at 07:16, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de > <mailto:andres@anarazel.de>> wrote: > > > > I think the danger presented here is far smaller than some of the > statements in this thread might make one think. > > > Clearly it's not happening a huge amount or we'd have a lot of noise > about Pg eating people's data, people shouting about how unreliable it > is, etc. We don't. So it's not some earth shattering imminent threat to > everyone's data. It's gone unnoticed, or the root cause unidentified, > for a long time. > Yeah, it clearly isn't the case that everything we do suddenly got pointless. It's fairly annoying, though. > I suspect we've written off a fair few issues in the past as "it'd > bad hardware" when actually, the hardware fault was the trigger for > a Pg/kernel interaction bug. And blamed containers for things that > weren't really the container's fault. But even so, if it were > happening tons, we'd hear more noise. > Right. Write errors are fairly rare, and we've probably ignored a fair number of cases demonstrating this issue. It kinda reminds me the wisdom that not seeing planes with bullet holes in the engine does not mean engines don't need armor [1]. [1] https://medium.com/@penguinpress/an-excerpt-from-how-not-to-be-wrong-by-jordan-ellenberg-664e708cfc3d regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: