On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut > <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 5/13/16 2:39 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> So, attached are two patches that apply on HEAD to address the problem > >> of pg_basebackup that does not sync the data it writes. As > >> pg_basebackup cannot use directly initdb -S because, as a client-side > >> utility, it may be installed while initdb is not (see Fedora and > >> RHEL), I have refactored the code so as the routines in initdb.c doing > >> the fsync of PGDATA and other fsync stuff are in src/fe_utils/, and > >> this is 0001. > > > > Why fe_utils? initdb is not a front-end program. > > Thinking about that, you are right. Let's move it to src/common, > frontend-only though. > > >> Patch 0002 is a set of fixes for pg_basebackup: > >> - In plain mode, fsync_pgdata is used so as all the tablespaces are > >> fsync'd at once. This takes care as well of the case where pg_xlog is > >> a symlink. > >> - In tar mode (no stdout), each tar file is synced individually, and > >> the base directory is synced once at the end. > >> In both cases, failures are not considered fatal. > > > > Maybe there should be --nosync options like initdb has? > > What do others think about that? I could implement that on top of 0002 > with some extra options. But to be honest that looks to be just some > extra sugar for what is basically a bug fix... And I am feeling that > providing such a switch to users would be a way for one to shoot > himself badly, particularly for pg_receivexlog where a crash can cause > segments to go missing. > > Well, why do we provide a --nosync option for initdb? Wouldn't the argument basically be the same? I agree it kind of feels like overkill, but it would be consistent overkill? :) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
