On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2016-01-09 18:04:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > > > > On 2016-01-07 11:27:13 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > > > I read your patch and I know what I want to try to have a small and > > simple > > > > fix. I must admit that I have not really understood in which condition > > the > > > > checkpointer would decide to close a file, but that does not mean that > > the > > > > potential issue should not be addressed. > > > > > > There's a trivial example: Consider three tablespaces and > > > max_files_per_process = 2. The balancing can easily cause three files > > > being flushed at the same time. > > > > > > > Won't the same thing can occur without patch in mdsync() and can't > > we handle it in same way? In particular, I am referring to below code: > > I don't see how that's corresponding - the problem is that current > proposed infrastructure keeps a kernel level (or fd.c in my versio) fd > open in it's 'pending flushes' struct. But since that isn't associated > with fd.c opening/closing files that fd isn't very meaningful. >
Okay, but I think that is the reason why you are worried that it is possible to issue sync_file_range() on a closed file, is that right or am I missing something? With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
