| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.6 and fsync=off |
| Date: | 2016-05-02 16:04:29 |
| Message-ID: | 1035.1462205069@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2016-05-02 10:07:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> - If that flag is set on a subsequent startup, say:
>> WARNING: Recovery was previously performed with fsync=off; this
>> cluster may be irretrievably corrupted.
> Well, the problem with that is that postgres crashes are actually
> harmless with regard to fsync=on/off. It's just OS crashes that are a
> problem. So it seems quite likely that the false-positive rate here
> would be high enough, to make people ignore it.
That's a pretty good point. Also, as sketched, I believe this would
start bleating after a crash recovery performed because a backend
died --- which is a case where we know for certain there was no OS
crash. So this idea needs some more thought.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-05-02 16:21:07 | Re: 9.6 and fsync=off |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-05-02 15:59:34 | Re: 9.6 and fsync=off |