On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-03-29 10:06:20 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> > wrote: > > > > > On 3/28/16 11:03 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> That should work yeah. And given that we already use that check in > other > > >> places, it seems it should be perfectly safe. And as long as we only > do > > >> a WARNING and not abort if the fsync fails, we should be OK if people > > >> intentionally store their backups on an fs that doesn't speak fsync > (if > > >> that exists), in which case I don't really think we even need a switch > > >> to turn it off. > > >> > > > > > > I'd even go so far as spitting out a warning any time we can't fsync > > > (maybe that's what you're suggesting?) > > > > > > That is pretty much what I was suggesting, yes. > > > > Though we might want to consolidate them in for example pg_basebackup -Fp > > and pg_dump -Fd into something like "failed to fsync <n> files". > > I'd just not output anything if ENOTSUPP or similar is returned, and not > bother with something as complex as collecting errors. > That'll work too, I guess. Won't necessarily make people aware of the problem, but in the unlikely event they use a fs like that they should be aware of it already. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
