Hi, On 2015-12-12 22:14:13 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > this is the second improvement proposed in the thread [1] about ext4 data > loss issue. It adds another field to control file, tracking the last known > WAL segment. This does not eliminate the data loss, just the silent part of > it when the last segment gets lost (due to forgetting the rename, deleting > it by mistake or whatever). The patch makes sure the cluster refuses to > start if that happens.
Uh, that's fairly expensive. In many cases it'll significantly increase the number of fsyncs. I've a bit of a hard time believing this'll be worthwhile. Additionally this doesn't seem to take WAL replay into account? Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
