From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: subscriptionCheck failures on nightjar |
Date: | 2019-02-13 19:11:26 |
Message-ID: | 1466.1550085086@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:
> I was kinda pondering just open coding it. I am not yet convinced that
> my idea of just using an open FD isn't the least bad approach for the
> issue at hand. What precisely is the NFS issue you're concerned about?
I'm not sure that fsync-on-FD after the rename will work, considering that
the issue here is that somebody might've unlinked the file altogether
before we get to doing the fsync. I don't have a hard time believing that
that might result in a failure report on NFS or similar. Yeah, it's
hypothetical, but the argument that we need a repeat fsync at all seems
equally hypothetical.
> Right now fsync_fname_ext isn't exposed outside fd.c...
Mmm. That makes it easier to consider changing its API.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-02-13 19:18:29 | Re: Using POPCNT and other advanced bit manipulation instructions |
Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2019-02-13 18:51:32 | Re: more unconstify use |