Re: pendingOps table is not cleared with fsync=off

2020-08-10 Thread Tom Lane
Shawn Debnath writes: > Good catch. Question is, are the users aware of the requirement to do a > manual fsync if they flip the fsync GUC off and then on? Should we do > this on their behalf to make a good faith attempt to ensure things are > flushed properly via an assign hook? No. Or at lea

Re: pendingOps table is not cleared with fsync=off

2020-08-06 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas writes: > On 06/08/2020 18:42, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm looking at this commit in connection with writing release notes >> for next week's releases. Am I right in thinking that this bug leads >> to indefinite bloat of the pendingOps hash table when fsync is off? >> If so, that se

Re: pendingOps table is not cleared with fsync=off

2020-08-06 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 06/08/2020 18:42, Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas writes: On 09/05/2020 02:53, Thomas Munro wrote: On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 9:21 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I noticed that commit 3eb77eba5a changed the logic in ProcessSyncRequests() (formerly mdsync()) so that if you have fsync=off, the

Re: pendingOps table is not cleared with fsync=off

2020-08-06 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas writes: > On 09/05/2020 02:53, Thomas Munro wrote: >> On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 9:21 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>> I noticed that commit 3eb77eba5a changed the logic in >>> ProcessSyncRequests() (formerly mdsync()) so that if you have fsync=off, >>> the entries are not removed

Re: pendingOps table is not cleared with fsync=off

2020-05-13 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 09/05/2020 02:53, Thomas Munro wrote: On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 9:21 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I noticed that commit 3eb77eba5a changed the logic in ProcessSyncRequests() (formerly mdsync()) so that if you have fsync=off, the entries are not removed from the pendingOps hash table. I don't th

Re: pendingOps table is not cleared with fsync=off

2020-05-08 Thread Thomas Munro
On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 9:21 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I noticed that commit 3eb77eba5a changed the logic in > ProcessSyncRequests() (formerly mdsync()) so that if you have fsync=off, > the entries are not removed from the pendingOps hash table. I don't > think that was intended. Perhaps we g

pendingOps table is not cleared with fsync=off

2020-05-08 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Hi! I noticed that commit 3eb77eba5a changed the logic in ProcessSyncRequests() (formerly mdsync()) so that if you have fsync=off, the entries are not removed from the pendingOps hash table. I don't think that was intended. I propose the attached patch to move the test for enableFsync so tha