On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 6:23 AM, MauMau <maumau307@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The PostgreSQL documentation describes cp (on UNIX/Linux) or copy (on
>> Windows) as an example for archive_command. However, cp/copy does not sync
>> the copied data to disk. As a result, the completed WAL segments would be
>> lost in the following sequence:
>>
>> 1. A WAL segment fills up.
>>
>> 2. The archiver process archives the just filled WAL segment using
>> archive_command. That is, cp/copy reads the WAL segment file from pg_xlog/
>> and writes to the archive area. At this point, the WAL file is not
>> persisted to the archive area yet, because cp/copy doesn't sync the writes.
>>
>> 3. The checkpoint processing removes the WAL segment file from pg_xlog/.
>>
>> 4. The OS crashes. The filled WAL segment doesn't exist anywhere any more.
>>
>> Considering the "reliable" image of PostgreSQL and widespread use in
>> enterprise systems, I think something should be done. Could you give me
>> your opinions on the right direction? Although the doc certainly escapes by
>> saying "(This is an example, not a recommendation, and might not work on all
>> platforms.)", it seems from pgsql-xxx MLs that many people are following
>> this example.
>>
>> * Improve the example in the documentation.
>> But what command can we use to reliably sync just one file?
>>
>> * Provide some command, say pg_copy, which copies a file synchronously by
>> using fsync(), and describes in the doc something like "for simple use
>> cases, you can use pg_copy as the standard reliable copy command."
>
> +1. This won't obviate the need for tools to manage replication, but
> it would make it possible to get the simplest case right without
> guessing.
+1, too.
And, what about making pg_copy call posix_fadvise(DONT_NEED) against the
archived file after the copy? Also It might be good idea to support the direct
copy of the file to avoid wasting the file cache.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao