On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 07:21:27PM +0530, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> I've also verified the same. The patch looks good to me.
Thanks for confirming. I have pushed the fix down to 10.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 6:47 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yes, there is a second one. I just looked at walmethods.c and I did not
> spot any other issues. What do you think about the updated version
> attached?
> --
I've also verified the same. The patch looks good to me.
--
Thanks & Regards,
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 05:48:54PM +0530, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> In the same note, in tar_close(), we fsync on close. We're not
> checking the status of fsync there. Should we introduce the same check
> there as well?
Yes, there is a second one. I just looked at walmethods.c and I did not
spot any
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I was just looking at the code of pg_basebackup, and noticed that we
>> don't actually check if the two last empty blocks of any tar file
>> produced are cor
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was just looking at the code of pg_basebackup, and noticed that we
> don't actually check if the two last empty blocks of any tar file
> produced are correctly fsync'd or not:
> @@ -957,7 +957,10 @@ tar_finish(void)
>
> /* s
Hi all,
I was just looking at the code of pg_basebackup, and noticed that we
don't actually check if the two last empty blocks of any tar file
produced are correctly fsync'd or not:
@@ -957,7 +957,10 @@ tar_finish(void)
/* sync the empty blocks as well, since they're after the last file */
if (
