From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Martín Marqués <martin(at)bugs(dot)unl(dot)edu(dot)ar>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Disaster! |
Date: | 2004-01-26 18:04:12 |
Message-ID: | 200401261804.i0QI4CY10530@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I said:
> > If there wasn't disk space enough to hold the clog page, the checkpoint
> > attempt should have failed. So it may be that allowing a short read in
> > slru.c would be patching the symptom of a bug that is really elsewhere.
>
> After more staring at the code, I have a theory. SlruPhysicalWritePage
> and SlruPhysicalReadPage are coded on the assumption that close() can
> never return any interesting failure. However, it now occurs to me that
> there are some filesystem implementations wherein ENOSPC could be
> returned at close() rather than the preceding write(). (For instance,
> the HPUX man page for close() states that this never happens on local
> filesystems but can happen on NFS.) So it'd be possible for
> SlruPhysicalWritePage to think it had successfully written a page when
> it hadn't. This would allow a checkpoint to complete :-(
>
> Chris, what's your platform exactly, and what kind of filesystem are
> you storing pg_clog on?
We already have a TODO on fclose():
* Add checks for fclose() failure
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-01-26 18:23:09 | Re: Disaster! |
Previous Message | Matthew Kirkwood | 2004-01-26 18:00:58 | Re: Named arguments in function calls |