Re: Incorrect fsync handling in pg_basebackup's tar_finish

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Incorrect fsync handling in pg_basebackup's tar_finish
Date: 2018-06-25 13:17:29
Message-ID: 20180625131729.GF1146@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 05:48:54PM +0530, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> In the same note, in tar_close(), we fsync on close. We're not
> checking the status of fsync there. Should we introduce the same check
> there as well?

Yes, there is a second one. I just looked at walmethods.c and I did not
spot any other issues. What do you think about the updated version
attached?
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
walmethod-fsync-v2.patch text/x-diff 955 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gaurav Mishra 2018-06-25 13:36:06 Regarding the correct and best way to fetching a tablename in contrib module
Previous Message Mark Dilger 2018-06-25 13:14:40 Re: Auto-partitioning in PostgreSQL 10