On 05/26/2015 08:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
I certainly see your point, but Tom also pointed out that it's not great
to ignore failures during this phase:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> writes:
What exactly is failing?
Is it that fsync is returning -1 ?
According to the original report from Christoph Berg, it was open()
not fsync() that was failing, at least in permissions-based cases.
I'm not sure if we should just uniformly ignore all failures in this
phase. That would have the merit of clearly not creating any new
startup failure cases compared to the previous code, but as you say
sometimes it might mean ignoring real problems.
If we accept this, then we still have to have the lists, to decide what
to fail on and what to ignore. If we're going to have said lists tho, I
don't really see the point in fsync'ing things we're pretty confident
aren't ours.
No, that's not right at all. The idea, at least as I understand it,
would be decide which errors to ignore by looking at the error code,
not by looking at which file is involved.
OK, I'm late to the party. But why exactly are we syncing absolutely
everything? That seems over-broad.
And might it be better to check that we can open each file using
access() than calling open() and looking at the error code?
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
