On 1/6/25 19:08, Tom Lane wrote:
David Steele <da...@pgbackrest.org> writes:
On 1/4/25 11:07, Thomas Munro wrote:
As for CIFS, there are lots of reports of this sort of thing from
Linux CIFS clients.
There may be users running Postgres on CIFS but my guess is that is rare
-- at least I have never seen anyone doing it.
It'd be news to me too. I wondered if I could test it locally, but
while my NAS knows half a dozen such protocols it's never heard of
CIFS.
You may also know it as SMB or Samba. pgBackRest skips directory fsyncs
if the repository type is set to CIFS so I think we'd know if anybody
was running on CIFS as I'm fairly certain a directory fsync will return
a hard error. That may be implementation dependent, though.
I'm more concerned about the report we saw on SUSE/NFS [1]. If that
report is accurate it indicates this may not be something we can just
document and move on from -- unless we are willing to entirely drop
support for NFS.
[1] https://github.com/pgbackrest/pgbackrest/issues/1423
I installed an up-to-date OpenSUSE image (Leap 15.6) and it passes
my "rmtree" test just fine with my NAS. The report you cite
doesn't have any details on what the NFS server was, but I'd be
inclined to guess that that server's filesystem lacked support
for stable NFS cookies.
The internal report we received might have had a similar cause. Sure
seems like a minefield for any user trying to figure out if their setup
is compliant, though. In many setups (especially production) a drop
database is rare.
Regards,
-David
