| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions |
| Date: | 2016-01-22 12:54:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20160122125427.GA4961@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-01-22 21:32:29 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Group shot with 3), 4) and 5). Well, there is no data loss here,
> putting me in the direction of considering this addition of an fsync
> as an optimization and not a bug.
I think this is an extremely weak argument. The reasoning when exactly a
loss of file is acceptable is complicated. In many cases adding an
additional fsync won't add measurable cost, given the frequency of
operations and/or the cost of surrounding operations.
Now, if you can make an argument why something is potentially impacting
performance *and* definitely not required: OK, then we can discuss
that.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-01-22 13:54:12 | Re: Declarative partitioning |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2016-01-22 12:41:58 | Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions |