From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Anthony Iliopoulos <ailiop(at)altatus(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS |
Date: | 2018-04-09 20:34:15 |
Message-ID: | 20180409203415.spd3nkv752r6q7df@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-04-09 13:25:54 -0700, Mark Dilger wrote:
> I was reading this thread up until now as meaning that the standby could
> receive corrupt WAL data and become corrupted.
I don't see that as a real problem here. For one the problematic
scenarios shouldn't readily apply, for another WAL is checksummed.
There's the problem that a new basebackup would potentially become
corrupted however. And similarly pg_rewind.
Note that I'm not saying that we and/or linux shouldn't change
anything. Just that the apocalypse isn't here.
> Your comment reads as if this is a problem isolated to whichever server has
> the problem, and will not get propagated to other servers. Am I reading
> that right?
I think that's basically right. There's cases where corruption could get
propagated, but they're not straightforward.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-04-09 20:34:56 | Re: pgsql: Support partition pruning at execution time |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-04-09 20:30:00 | Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS |