Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Anthony Iliopoulos
Тема Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS
Дата
Msg-id 20180401011446.GK11627@technoir
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 12:38:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > So we should just use the big hammer here.
>
> And bitch, loudly and publicly, about how broken this kernel behavior is.
> If we make enough of a stink maybe it'll get fixed.

It is not likely to be fixed (beyond what has been done already with the
manpage patches and errseq_t fixes on the reporting level). The issue is,
the kernel needs to deal with hard IO errors at that level somehow, and
since those errors typically persist, re-dirtying the pages would not
really solve the problem (unless some filesystem remaps the request to a
different block, assuming the device is alive). Keeping around dirty
pages that cannot possibly be written out is essentially a memory leak,
as those pages would stay around even after the application has exited.

Best regards,
Anthony


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Anthony Iliopoulos
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS
Следующее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification