On 01/25/2016 08:30 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
,,,
My first line of thoughts after looking at the patch is that I am
not against adding those fsync calls on HEAD as there is roughly
an advantage to not go back to recovery in most cases and ensure
consistent names, but as they do not imply any data loss I would
not encourage a back-patch. Adding them seems harmless at first
sight I agree, but those are not actual bugs.
OK. It is true that PGDATA would be fsync'd in 4 code paths with your
patch which are not that much taken:
- Renaming tablespace map file and backup label file (three times)
- Renaming to recovery.done
So, what do you think about the patch attached? Moving the calls into
the critical sections is not really necessary except when installing a
new segment.
Seems OK to me. Thanks for the time and improvements!
Tomas
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
