On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 12:29:16PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-04-09 21:26:21 +0200, Anthony Iliopoulos wrote: > > What about having buffered IO with implied fsync() atomicity via > > O_SYNC? > > You're kidding, right? We could also just add sleep(30)'s all over the > tree, and hope that that'll solve the problem. There's a reason we > don't permanently fsync everything. Namely that it'll be way too slow.
I am assuming you can apply the same principle of selectively using O_SYNC at times and places that you'd currently actually call fsync(). Also assuming that you'd want to have a backwards-compatible solution for all those kernels that don't keep the pages around, irrespective of future fixes. Short of loading a kernel module and dealing with the problem directly, the only other available options seem to be either O_SYNC, O_DIRECT or ignoring the issue. Best regards, Anthony
