| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2018-04-23 20:14:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20180423201448.nxe6jc5tu63kzum7@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-03-28 10:23:46 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> TL;DR: Pg should PANIC on fsync() EIO return. Retrying fsync() is not OK at
> least on Linux. When fsync() returns success it means "all writes since the
> last fsync have hit disk" but we assume it means "all writes since the last
> SUCCESSFUL fsync have hit disk".
> But then we retried the checkpoint, which retried the fsync(). The retry
> succeeded, because the prior fsync() *cleared the AS_EIO bad page flag*.
Random other thing we should look at: Some filesystems (nfs yes, xfs
ext4 no) flush writes at close(2). We check close() return code, just
log it... So close() counts as an fsync for such filesystems().
I'm LSF/MM to discuss future behaviour of linux here, but that's how it
is right now.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-23 21:10:20 | "could not reattach to shared memory" on buildfarm member dory |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-04-23 20:14:45 | Re: Built-in connection pooling |