| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: initdb and fsync |
| Date: | 2012-01-28 18:18:00 |
| Message-ID: | 24164.1327774680@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> I'm curious what problem we're actually solving here, though. I've run
> the buildfarm countless thousands of times on different VMs, and five of
> my seven current animals run in VMs, and I don't think I've ever seen a
> failure ascribable to inadequately synced files from initdb.
Yeah. Personally I would be sad if initdb got noticeably slower, and
I've never seen or heard of a failure that this would fix.
I wonder whether it wouldn't be sufficient to call sync(2) at the end,
anyway, rather than cluttering the entire initdb codebase with fsync
calls.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-01-28 18:27:14 | Re: initdb and fsync |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2012-01-28 18:16:11 | Re: initdb and fsync |