Re: fsync = true beneficial on ext3?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: fsync = true beneficial on ext3? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9543.1076304151@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: fsync = true beneficial on ext3? (Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes: > My problem is that journalling works on a per-file basis. ie, the data for a > file is written before that file's metadata. However, the fsync is used for > the WAL segments and if you can't guarentee the WAL will hit the disk before > the data segments (different files), you're stuffed I think. > Or maybe WAL is not that sensitive to that kind of reordering. Maybe it only > depends on the WAL being consistant. The entire *point* of WAL is that WAL entries must hit disk before any of the data-file changes they describe (that's why it's called write AHEAD log). Without this you can't use WAL replay to ensure the data files are brought to a fully consistent state. So yes, we do have to have cross-file write ordering guarantees. fsync is a pretty blunt tool for enforcing cross-file write ordering, but it's the only one available... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: