Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Not necessarily --- it could be out-of-disk-space, on at least some
> >> filesystems. More to the point, the important thing is not to commit a
>
> > I assume the operating system is already allocating file system space
> > during the write, and the sync is only forcing it to disk.
>
> Not so --- as was pointed out later in the thread, neither NFS nor AFS
> work that way, and there could be other cases.
>
> In any case, I don't subscribe to the idea that we can just abdicate all
> responsibility in case of hardware problems. Yes, we do rely on a disk
> to keep storing information once it's accepted it, but that doesn't mean
> that it's okay to ignore write-failure reports. We are failing to hold
> up our end of the deal if we do that.
Well, in normal usage, applications do the write and expect the data to
be pushed to disk later, so I don't see us ignoring write() failures,
but rather push to disk. Isn't a separate fsync after sync closer to
reliable?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073