| From: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS |
| Date: | 2018-04-03 00:03:39 |
| Message-ID: | DB6243F9-ABC1-49EB-94A3-AC4E80FEEAF6@thebuild.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Apr 2, 2018, at 16:27, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> They're undocumented and extremely surprising semantics that are arguably a violation of the POSIX spec for fsync(), or at least a surprising interpretation of it.
Even accepting that (I personally go with surprising over violation, as if my vote counted), it is highly unlikely that we will convince every kernel team to declare "What fools we've been!" and push a change... and even if they did, PostgreSQL can look forward to many years of running on kernels with the broken semantics. Given that, I think the PANIC option is the soundest one, as unappetizing as it is.
--
-- Christophe Pettus
xof(at)thebuild(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-04-03 00:05:09 | Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-02 23:27:55 | Re: BUG #14999: pg_rewind corrupts control file global/pg_control |