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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Craig Ringer
Тема Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS
Дата
Msg-id CAMsr+YGiVR_BWSPjdra+0DbHfyfYB7=DxBmg2f59wf_uvM0zxg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
Ответы Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 4 April 2018 at 13:29, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> Uh, are you sure it fixes our use-case?  From the email description it
>> sounded like it only reported fsync errors for every open file
>> descriptor at the time of the failure, but the checkpoint process might
>> open the file _after_ the failure and try to fsync a write that happened
>> _before_ the failure.
>
> I'm not sure of anything.  I can see that it's designed to report
> errors since the last fsync() of the *file* (presumably via any fd),
> which sounds like the desired behaviour:
>
> [..]

Scratch that.  Whenever you open a file descriptor you can't see any
preceding errors at all, because:

/* Ensure that we skip any errors that predate opening of the file */
f->f_wb_err = filemap_sample_wb_err(f->f_mapping);

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/fs/open.c#L752

Our whole design is based on being able to open, close and reopen
files at will from any process, and in particular to fsync() from a
different process that didn't inherit the fd but instead opened it
later.  But it looks like that might be able to eat errors that
occurred during asynchronous writeback (when there was nobody to
report them to), before you opened the file?

Holy hell. So even PANICing on fsync() isn't sufficient, because the kernel will deliberately hide writeback errors that predate our fsync() call from us?

I'll see if I can expand my testcase for that. I'm presently dockerizing it to make it easier for others to use, but that turns out to be a major pain when using devmapper etc. Docker in privileged mode doesn't seem to play nice with device-mapper.

Does that mean that the ONLY ways to do reliable I/O are:

- single-process, single-file-descriptor write() then fsync(); on failure, retry all work since last successful fsync()

or

- direct I/O

?

--
 Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Amit Langote
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
Следующее
От: Amit Langote
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning