| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: read() returns ERANGE in Mac OS X | 
| Date: | 2012-05-21 16:23:28 | 
| Message-ID: | 17911.1337617408@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Yeah, an enum would be nicer than an additional GUC. I kinda keep forgetting
>>> that we have those. Though to bikeshed, the GUC should probably be just called
>>> 'zero_pages' and take the values 'never', 'missing', 'unreadable' ;-)
>> Sounds reasonable to me ..
> It seems like it would be nicer to have a setting that somehow makes
> the system disregard errors and soldier on rather than actively
> destroying your data.  Not that I have an exact design in mind, but
> zero_damaged_pages is a really fast way to destroy your data.
If we were sure that the kernel error was permanent, then this argument
would be moot: the data is gone already.  The scary thought here is that
it might be a transient error, such as a not-always-repeatable kernel
bug.  In that case, zeroing the page would indeed lose data that had
been recoverable before.
I'm not entirely sure how we would "soldier on" though; there is no good
reason to think that the kernel has loaded any data at all into
userspace when read() fails.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-21 16:27:17 | Re: read() returns ERANGE in Mac OS X | 
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-05-21 16:22:32 | Re: Archiver not exiting upon crash |