Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux)
| От | Craig Ringer |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMsr+YHXKMjbek6FaYyViW7A8tZ2qfROeO1OYt_GBNLE6y_mbg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux) (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 at 07:27, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
2. I am +1 on back-patching Craig's PANIC-on-failure logic. Doing
nothing is not an option I like. I have some feedback and changes to
propose though; see attached.
Thanks very much for the work on reviewing and revising this.
I don't see why sync_file_range(SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE) should get a
pass here. Inspection of some version of the kernel might tell us it
can't advance the error counter and report failure, but what do we
gain by relying on that? Changed.
I was sure it made sense at the time, but I can't explain that decision now, and it looks like we should treat it as a failure.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: