From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: backup tools ought to ensure created backups are durable |
Date: | 2016-03-29 08:12:29 |
Message-ID: | 20160329081229.GA27646@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-03-29 10:06:20 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > On 3/28/16 11:03 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> That should work yeah. And given that we already use that check in other
> >> places, it seems it should be perfectly safe. And as long as we only do
> >> a WARNING and not abort if the fsync fails, we should be OK if people
> >> intentionally store their backups on an fs that doesn't speak fsync (if
> >> that exists), in which case I don't really think we even need a switch
> >> to turn it off.
> >>
> >
> > I'd even go so far as spitting out a warning any time we can't fsync
> > (maybe that's what you're suggesting?)
>
>
> That is pretty much what I was suggesting, yes.
>
> Though we might want to consolidate them in for example pg_basebackup -Fp
> and pg_dump -Fd into something like "failed to fsync <n> files".
I'd just not output anything if ENOTSUPP or similar is returned, and not
bother with something as complex as collecting errors.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2016-03-29 08:22:34 | Re: backup tools ought to ensure created backups are durable |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2016-03-29 08:06:20 | Re: backup tools ought to ensure created backups are durable |